Versace in the IPEC: No luck for No Fixed Abode London

In the recent hearing of No Fixed Abode London Ltd v Gianni Versace SpA [2018] EWHC 3221 (IPEC)  three IP infringement claims against Versace were struck out for having no resonable prospect of success. The claims related to designs used in and on Versace’s clothing.

For those unaware of the Claimant’s business (myself and the majority of the IP Bar included) “No Fixed Abode is a Luxury Designer Streetwear Fashion Brand founded from adversity and Made in London. NFA is for people that are non conformists.” (link)

The dispute as a whole appears to centre on the Versace Versus ‘diffusion’ line, and its lion logo, and the lion logo of No Fixed Abode London:

versus-versace-black-metallic-gold-lion-print-crew-neck-t-shirt-p4377-6014_image.jpgNFAL t-shirt

[image attributions and sources at the end of the article; unfortunately no commission is received on purchases]

The Judgment of Hacon J provides a few interesting points on summary judgment that are in line with the factors discussed in Part One and Part Two of my recent Article on that topic.… Read more...

Summary Judgment in IP: Part Two – What’s stopping you?

Getting to Court Early
(Photo by THE 5TH on Pexels.com)

Getting to Court Early

A key difference between IP claims and other litigation is this: after exchange of pleadings, what more does the Court really need to decide the case?

This article is Part Two of two. For Part One, see here: Part One.

Part One looks at early determination of claims in IP, focusing on the recent Judgment in Red Bull v Big Horn ([2018] EWHC 2794 (Ch); as reported in CityAM).

Fact Evidence

Continuing with the example of Red Bull v Big Horn: In some trade mark cases the Court may need evidence as to the perception of the consumer of the goods: I’m not aware how popular Red Bull is among members of the Bench, but I’m sure it has fuelled the occasional late night Judgment writing marathon.… Read more...

One strike and you’re out: Summary Judgment in IP?

Even amongst litigators there’s a common preconception that IP cases are complex, and not the sort of cases that are amenable to summary judgment – but is that really the case?

In the UK, early determination is sought under CPR 3.4 or CPR 24 – strike out or summary judgment respectively.  This article will run through the recent unsuccessful summary judgment and strike out application in Red Bull v Big Horn ([2018] EWHC 2794 (Ch); as reported in CityAM) to assess whether IP claims really are too complex for early determination.

To round things off we’ll look at three IP summary judgment success stories (one copyright, one designs, and one patent) to see the kind of cases that do fit the bill.… Read more...