header-logo header-logo

27 June 2013 / David Hertzell
Issue: 7566 / Categories: Opinion , Intellectual property
printer mail-detail

Beating the bullies

157580470

David Hertzell & Julia Jarzabkowski aim to fend off groundless IP threats

Intellectual property rights are valuable and support economic growth by encouraging and rewarding innovation. For many businesses, patents, trade marks and design rights can be among their most important assets. Their worth, however, is undermined through unauthorised use and so a robust response to infringement makes good business sense. But threats to sue can be misused. A threat may be made, not with the intention of protecting an IP right, but as a means to damage a competitor.

Threats of infringement proceedings have a pernicious effect because IP litigation can be complex, disruptive and expensive, as the global battle between Apple and Samsung confirms. If a threat is made to the trade source of an infringement, such as a manufacturer or importer, they may be more likely to stand their ground as they may have more invested in the product or process. That isn’t the case with retailers or customers. If threatened, the mere prospect of litigation can be enough to change their

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll