Cambridge BA: IP Law Paper

Aria is a freelance graphic designer who, in 2019, was commissioned by BlueWave Ltd, a sports apparel company, to create a distinctive logo featuring an abstract wave motif and a stylised typeface spelling 'BLUEWAVE'. The contract stated only that BlueWave Ltd would have 'the right to use the logo commercially'. In 2022, BlueWave Ltd sells its entire business — including its brand assets — to CoreSport plc. CoreSport plc begins using the logo on a new range of cycling helmets, a product line never contemplated by BlueWave Ltd. Aria objects, arguing that copyright in the logo remains with her and that CoreSport's use exceeds any licence granted. Meanwhile, Aria discovers that a third party, DesignRush Ltd, has independently created a logo that is strikingly similar to her wave motif, though DesignRush claims it was designed entirely independently by one of its employees in 2020. CoreSport threatens Aria with trade mark infringement proceedings, having registered 'BLUEWAVE' as a word mark in Class 25 (clothing and footwear) in 2021. Advise Aria on: (i) copyright ownership and the scope of the licence granted to BlueWave Ltd and whether it is assignable to CoreSport plc; (ii) whether she has a claim against DesignRush Ltd for copyright infringement; and (iii) the merits of CoreSport's trade mark infringement threat against Aria.

Dr Hamid, a research scientist employed by PharmGen plc, develops, during evenings and weekends using his own equipment but partly informed by confidential data obtained at work, a novel process ('Process X') for synthesising a blockbuster anti-cancer drug compound ('Compound Y'). He discloses Process X to a colleague at an informal departmental seminar in March 2023, describing it as a 'breakthrough idea'. He files a patent application for both Process X and Compound Y with the UK Intellectual Property Office in October 2023. PharmGen plc argues that it owns any resulting patent by virtue of Dr Hamid's employment. In November 2023, a rival company, BioNXT Ltd, independently develops an identical process ('Process Z'), which it begins using commercially before Dr Hamid's patent is granted. BioNXT claims it has a right to continue use as a prior user. Additionally, a US competitor, GenTech Inc, begins manufacturing Compound Y in the United States and exports the resulting drug to the UK. Advise Dr Hamid on: (i) whether PharmGen plc can claim ownership of the patent under the Patents Act 1977; (ii) the effect of his March 2023 disclosure on novelty; and (iii) the strength of BioNXT's prior use defence and GenTech's potential liability for patent infringement.

Luxé Ltd is a French luxury fashion house that sells handbags and accessories under the well-known mark 'LUMIÈRE'. It has a UK registered trade mark for 'LUMIÈRE' in Class 18 (leather goods) and Class 25 (clothing). LowCost Ltd, a UK budget retailer, begins selling handbags labelled 'LUMERE' (without the accent), marketing them as 'inspired by Parisian style'. LowCost's advertising campaign uses the slogan 'Get the LUMIÈRE look for less', reproducing Luxé's registered mark in comparative advertising. LowCost also sells a range of perfumes (Class 3) branded 'LUMIÈRE NOIR', arguing that Luxé has no registration in Class 3. A street vendor, 'Bags by Marco', sells counterfeit Luxé LUMIÈRE handbags in Camden Market. Luxé discovers that a consumer, Mrs Chen, purchased a 'LUMERE' bag believing it to be a genuine Luxé product. Consider: (i) whether LowCost's 'LUMERE' bags infringe Luxé's registered trade mark under ss.10(1) and 10(2) TMA 1994; (ii) the legality of LowCost's comparative advertising slogan under s.10(6) TMA 1994 and relevant EU-derived law; (iii) whether Luxé can prevent the 'LUMIÈRE NOIR' perfume range on the basis of a mark with a reputation; and (iv) Luxé's remedies against Bags by Marco for the counterfeit sales.

Critically evaluate the extent to which the law of passing off adequately protects commercial reputation in the absence of registered trade mark protection. In your answer, consider the evolution of the doctrine from its classical formulation in Reckitt & Colman v Borden through to its application in cases of extended passing off and instruments of deception, and assess whether the current law strikes the right balance between protecting traders and preserving market competition.

To what extent does UK copyright law, as interpreted by the courts, adequately protect the interests of authors while fulfilling its underlying policy purpose of promoting the dissemination of knowledge and culture? With particular reference to originality, duration, the fair dealing defences and moral rights, critically assess whether the current framework achieves the correct balance between rights-holders and the public domain.