Call us today0800 160 1298
 
 

Advantage Litigation

Welcome to Advantage Litigation Services. We provide affordable access to commercial litigation.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

IP transfer rights confirmed in Brexit draft agreement

Posted by on in Uncategorized
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 274
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

In a move that will be welcomed by many businesses both in mainland Europe and the UK, the recent Brexit draft withdrawal agreement contains a clause which means that EU trademarks and designs will continue to be valid once the UK formally leaves the EU (if it actually does, of course!).

The clause in the withdrawal agreement, Article 54, confirms that subject to trademarks and IP being assigned to a specific owner before the end of the transition period, then such trademarks and designs will apply both in the EU and the UK.
IP experts had expressed concerns prior to the confirmation of Article 54, led by the Intellectual Property Office who were acutely aware of the amount of legal and administrative work that would be involved in transferring thousands of rights. The clause will now mean that rights holders can be reassured that such effort will not have to be expended.

Carolyn Pepper, chairperson of the UK Law Society’s IP Committee said:

The draft agreement (if agreed) suggests largely business as usual regarding EU and community intellectual property rights registered up to the end of the transition period. What we don’t know yet is what will happen to rights filed after that so we will have to wait and see…the Law Society’s position is that the UK should remain within the European trade marks and designs system post transition given the likely costs to businesses of the alternative and so we hope that it still on the table.”

Article 54 also mirrors the preferred approach already confirmed by the EU Commission, who had already proposed that the UK should legislate to recognise products currently protected by geographical indications (‘GI’s’) in the EU. In the EU, a variety of food and drink products such as Champagne, Parmesan and Parma ham all currently have GI status, comparable to Scotch whisky in the UK.

 If you are thinking about suing another company but are worried about the costs of resolving the dispute or going to court, Advantage Litigation Services can help. We have vast experience navigating the different ways of funding commercial dispute resolution and are best placed to help you identify the most appropriate funding option and litigation protection that will best benefit you and your business. Click here to contact us or call 0800 160 1298 to discuss how we can help you manage the risks and find a funding option that works for you.

Get in touch

  1. Your Name(*)
    Please let us know your name.
  2. Your Email(*)
    Please let us know your email address.
  3. Company Name(*)
    Please write a subject for your message.
  4. Your Phone Number
    Invalid Input
  5. Message(*)
    Please let us know your message.
  6. Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Invalid Input

Latest News

  • In a move that many observers will see as a victory against the increasing ‘stealth’ privatisation of the NHS, healthcare provider Circle is set to lose its contract to the Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre, despite taking legal action to get the decision changed. Circle broke new ground in 2012 by becoming the first private and for profit healthcare business to be placed in charge of running an NHS hospital. Despite this contract, at Cambridgeshire’s Hinchingbrooke hospital, returning to NHS control in 2015 due to rising financial pressures, Circle had successfully run the Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre since 2008. Despite receiving high CQC ratings for patient satisfaction and having hit NHS targets for patient treatment, the firm – who claim to operate as a ‘John Lewis style social enterprise’ – lost the contract in April this year. Circle has been criticised for taking... Read More

  • A recent judgement at the High Court in London has seen the Post Office being ordered to pay over £5 million in legal costs resulting from its ongoing legal dispute with former Post Office workers. The legal action was bought by 557 former Post Office workers, many of whom were sub-postmasters, who claim that they were falsely blamed for financial shortfalls at various small Post Office branches throughout the UK. The former workers claim that a software error in the Post Office’s computer system – called Horizon – was responsible for the discrepancies which resulted in many staff losing their livelihoods. The claimant group includes Tracy Felstead, a former Post Office employee from Shropshire who in 2001 was jailed for six months after being convicted of stealing £11,500, and has always protested her innocence. The first trial, which opened in November... Read More

  • London’s Court of Appeal has ruled that a judge in a recent libel claim had ‘seriously transgressed’ the fundamental principle of neutrality and had ‘bullied’ a Litigant in Person (‘LIP’) whilst they were giving evidence at trial. The case in question, Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors, was a libel action involving a Polish language publication called Nowy Cza. The claimant was a LIP – meaning that he was representing himself rather than using a solicitor or barrister – and was giving evidence at the trial. The trial judge, Mr Justice Jay, was accused by the LIP of making: ..frequent gratuitous interjections during the trial, hostile to the claimant, putting the claimant under enormous pressure and making it extremely difficult for him to conduct the litigation”. The LIP’s plea was upheld at the Court of Appeal on three grounds: 1. That the judge’s conclusion that... Read More