Design RightThis part for the question that I have to completely answerThe concepts of individual character, overall impression and the informed user are the three key factors in determining whether a design is eligible for protection in the UK and in the European Union. Using relevant case law, critically examine how the Court of Justice of the European Union and the English Courts have interpreted and applied these three concepts.Remark
90% of available marks will be allocated to the application of judicial decisions, judicial and academic comments to the topic under discussion and no limited writing style. You may present information in the way that best conveys your ability to analyse and apply your knowledge, understanding, and research.This part for detail in the program that it may be useful for answer the questionIntroduction to IP, IP exploitation; Confidentiality and Trade Secrets:Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1968] F.S.R. 415; [1969] R.P.C. 41; Ch DFaccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch. 117Bailey v Graham ChD 25 November 2011VestergaardFrandsen A/S v BestNet Europe Ltd Chancery Division, 26 June 2009SocietaEsplosiviIndustrialiSpA v Ordnance Technologies (UK) Ltd (formerly SEI (UK) Ltd) [2007] EWHC 2875 (Ch); [2008] 2 All E.R. 622 (Ch D)Threeway Pressings Ltds Patent Application, Re, Patent Office, 20 March 2012 [2012] R.P.C. 20;Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team SdnBhd
Also known as: Force India Formula One Team Ltd v AerolabSrlCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)03 July 2013More information
The appropriate chapter in your textbook +
A critical evaluat of the proposed EU Trade Secrets Directive, IPQ 2014, 4, 257-279, Dr Tanya Aplin
Trade Secrets and Trade-Secret Licensing, A Handbook of Best Practices (eds A Krattiger, RT Mahoney, L Nelsen et al) MIHR, Oxford UK and PIPRA: Davis, U.S.A. 2007 Available online at www.ipHandbook.org, Karl F Jorda
Television formats: does English law adequately protect the industry and what can the industry do to protect itself? Entertainment Law Review 2013, AkashSachdeva, Jonathan Mcdonald
How to protect trade secrets in high tech sports? An intellectual property analysis based on the experiences at the Americas Cup and in the Formula One Championship E.I.P.R. 2010, 32(4), 155-164?(Jacques de Werra)Excercise
A critical evaluation of the proposed EU Trade Secrets Directive, Intellectual Property Quarterly 2014. Prof. Tanya Aplin*Registered & Unregistered DesignsWhitby Specialist Vehicals Ltd v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicals Ltd, [2014] EWHC 4242 (Pat)Samsung Electronics UK v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat)Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth, Supreme Court, 27 July 2011FlosSpA v Semeraro Casa e FamigliaSpA (C-168/09) European Court of Justice (Second Chamber), 27 January 2011PepsiCo Inc v GrupoPromer Mon-Graphic SA, Case C-281/10 P, European Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber), 20 October 2011Green Lane Products Ltd v PMS International Group Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 358
Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2006] RPC 31Procter & Gamble Co v Reckitt Benckiser UK Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 936
Lambretta Clothing Company Ltd v. Teddy Smith (UK) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 886Farmers Build Ltd v Carier Bulk Materials Handling Ltd [2000] ECDR 42C. & H. Engineering v F. Klucznik& Sons Ltd [1992] FSR 421
Ocular Science [1997] RPC 289More information
The appropriate chapters in your textbook +
Jane Cornwell, Dyson and Samsung compared: functionality and aesthetics in the design infringement analysis, European Intellectual Property Review (EIPR) 2013, 35(5)
Lionel BentlyThe return of industrial copyright?, EIPR 2012, 34(10))
Jose J. IzquierdoPerisOHIM practice in the field of invalidity of registered Community designs, EIPR 2008, 30(2)
ACID (Anti Copying in Design) newsletters www.acid.eu.com

Core texts

Bainbridge, Intellectual Property (Longman)

Colston& Galloway, Modern Intellectual Property Law (Routledge)

Cornish, Llewelyn&AplinIntellectual Property (Sweet & Maxwell)

Holyoak&Torremans, Intellectual Property Law (OUP)

Waelde, Laurie, Brown, Kheria, & Cornwell, Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law & Policy (OUP)Website and blog resources

www.ipo.gov.uk

www.ep.espacenet.com

http://www.bl.uk/pdf/patspec.pdf

http://acid.eu.com/

http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en

http://oami.europa.eu/en/default.htm

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/

http://www.acid.eu.com/news/category/acid-in-print/

http://class-99.blogspot.co.uk

the European Patent Office patent database. This is accessible from the Intellectual Property Office website, or via www.ep.espacenet.com

Design Right

This part for the question that I have to completely answer

The concepts of “individual character”, “overall impression” and the” informed user” are the three key factors in determining whether a design is eligible for protection in the UK and in the European Union. Using relevant case law, critically examine how the Court of Justice of the European Union and the English Courts have interpreted and applied these three concepts.

Remark
90% of available marks will be allocated to the application of judicial decisions, judicial and academic comments to the topic under discussion and no limited writing style. You may present information in the way that best conveys your ability to analyse and apply your knowledge, understanding, and research.

This part for detail in the program that it may be useful for answer the question

Introduction to IP, IP exploitation; Confidentiality and Trade Secrets:

Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1968] F.S.R. 415; [1969] R.P.C. 41; Ch D

Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch. 117

Bailey v Graham ChD 25 November 2011

VestergaardFrandsen A/S v BestNet Europe Ltd Chancery Division, 26 June 2009

SocietaEsplosiviIndustrialiSpA v Ordnance Technologies (UK) Ltd (formerly SEI (UK) Ltd) [2007] EWHC 2875 (Ch); [2008] 2 All E.R. 622 (Ch D)

Threeway Pressings Ltd’s Patent Application, Re, Patent Office, 20 March 2012 [2012] R.P.C. 20;

Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team SdnBhd
Also known as: Force India Formula One Team Ltd v AerolabSrlCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)03 July 2013

More information
The appropriate chapter in your textbook +
A critical evaluat of the proposed EU Trade Secrets Directive, IPQ 2014, 4, 257-279, Dr Tanya Aplin
Trade Secrets and Trade-Secret Licensing, A Handbook of Best Practices (eds A Krattiger, RT Mahoney, L Nelsen et al) MIHR, Oxford UK and PIPRA: Davis, U.S.A. 2007 Available online at www.ipHandbook.org, Karl F Jorda
Television formats: does English law adequately protect the industry and what can the industry do to protect itself? Entertainment Law Review 2013, AkashSachdeva, Jonathan Mcdonald
How to protect trade secrets in high tech sports? An intellectual property analysis based on the experiences at the America’s Cup and in the Formula One Championship E.I.P.R. 2010, 32(4), 155-164?(Jacques de Werra)

Excercise
A critical evaluation of the     proposed EU Trade Secrets Directive, Intellectual Property Quarterly 2014.     Prof. Tanya Aplin*

Registered & Unregistered Designs

Whitby Specialist Vehicals Ltd v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicals Ltd, [2014] EWHC 4242 (Pat)

Samsung Electronics UK v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat)

Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth, Supreme Court, 27 July 2011

FlosSpA v Semeraro Casa e FamigliaSpA (C-168/09) European Court of Justice (Second Chamber), 27 January 2011

PepsiCo Inc v GrupoPromer Mon-Graphic SA, Case C-281/10 P, European Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber), 20 October 2011

Green Lane Products Ltd v PMS International Group Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 358
Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2006] RPC 31

Procter & Gamble Co v Reckitt Benckiser UK Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 936
Lambretta Clothing Company Ltd v. Teddy Smith (UK) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 886

Farmers Build Ltd v Carier Bulk Materials Handling Ltd [2000] ECDR 42

C. & H. Engineering v F. Klucznik& Sons Ltd [1992] FSR 421
Ocular Science [1997] RPC 289

More information
The appropriate chapters in your textbook +
Jane Cornwell, ‘Dyson and Samsung compared: functionality and aesthetics in the design infringement analysis’, European Intellectual Property Review (EIPR) 2013, 35(5)
Lionel Bently’The return of industrial copyright?’, EIPR 2012, 34(10))
Jose J. IzquierdoPeris’OHIM practice in the field of invalidity of registered Community designs’, EIPR 2008, 30(2)
ACID (Anti Copying in Design) newsletters www.acid.eu.com<http://www.acid.eu.com>

Core texts
•    Bainbridge, Intellectual Property (Longman)
•    Colston& Galloway, Modern Intellectual Property Law (Routledge)
•    Cornish, Llewelyn&AplinIntellectual Property (Sweet & Maxwell)
•    Holyoak&Torremans, Intellectual Property Law (OUP)
•    Waelde, Laurie, Brown, Kheria, & Cornwell, Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law & Policy (OUP)

Website and blog resources
www.ipo.gov.uk
www.ep.espacenet.com
http://www.bl.uk/pdf/patspec.pdf
http://acid.eu.com/
http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en
http://oami.europa.eu/en/default.htm
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/
http://www.acid.eu.com/news/category/acid-in-print/
http://class-99.blogspot.co.uk
the European Patent Office patent database. This is accessible from the Intellectual Property Office website, or via www.ep.espacenet.com

Design Right

This part for the question that I have to completely answer

The concepts of “individual character”, “overall impression” and the” informed user” are the three key factors in determining whether a design is eligible for protection in the UK and in the European Union. Using relevant case law, critically examine how the Court of Justice of the European Union and the English Courts have interpreted and applied these three concepts.

Remark
90% of available marks will be allocated to the application of judicial decisions, judicial and academic comments to the topic under discussion and no limited writing style. You may present information in the way that best conveys your ability to analyse and apply your knowledge, understanding, and research.

This part for detail in the program that it may be useful for answer the question

Introduction to IP, IP exploitation; Confidentiality and Trade Secrets:

Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1968] F.S.R. 415; [1969] R.P.C. 41; Ch D

Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch. 117

Bailey v Graham ChD 25 November 2011

VestergaardFrandsen A/S v BestNet Europe Ltd Chancery Division, 26 June 2009

SocietaEsplosiviIndustrialiSpA v Ordnance Technologies (UK) Ltd (formerly SEI (UK) Ltd) [2007] EWHC 2875 (Ch); [2008] 2 All E.R. 622 (Ch D)

Threeway Pressings Ltd’s Patent Application, Re, Patent Office, 20 March 2012 [2012] R.P.C. 20;

Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team SdnBhd
Also known as: Force India Formula One Team Ltd v AerolabSrlCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)03 July 2013

More information
The appropriate chapter in your textbook +
A critical evaluat of the proposed EU Trade Secrets Directive, IPQ 2014, 4, 257-279, Dr Tanya Aplin
Trade Secrets and Trade-Secret Licensing, A Handbook of Best Practices (eds A Krattiger, RT Mahoney, L Nelsen et al) MIHR, Oxford UK and PIPRA: Davis, U.S.A. 2007 Available online at www.ipHandbook.org, Karl F Jorda
Television formats: does English law adequately protect the industry and what can the industry do to protect itself? Entertainment Law Review 2013, AkashSachdeva, Jonathan Mcdonald
How to protect trade secrets in high tech sports? An intellectual property analysis based on the experiences at the America’s Cup and in the Formula One Championship E.I.P.R. 2010, 32(4), 155-164?(Jacques de Werra)

Excercise
A critical evaluation of the     proposed EU Trade Secrets Directive, Intellectual Property Quarterly 2014.     Prof. Tanya Aplin*

Registered & Unregistered Designs

Whitby Specialist Vehicals Ltd v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicals Ltd, [2014] EWHC 4242 (Pat)

Samsung Electronics UK v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat)

Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth, Supreme Court, 27 July 2011

FlosSpA v Semeraro Casa e FamigliaSpA (C-168/09) European Court of Justice (Second Chamber), 27 January 2011

PepsiCo Inc v GrupoPromer Mon-Graphic SA, Case C-281/10 P, European Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber), 20 October 2011

Green Lane Products Ltd v PMS International Group Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 358
Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2006] RPC 31

Procter & Gamble Co v Reckitt Benckiser UK Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 936
Lambretta Clothing Company Ltd v. Teddy Smith (UK) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 886

Farmers Build Ltd v Carier Bulk Materials Handling Ltd [2000] ECDR 42

C. & H. Engineering v F. Klucznik& Sons Ltd [1992] FSR 421
Ocular Science [1997] RPC 289

More information
The appropriate chapters in your textbook +
Jane Cornwell, ‘Dyson and Samsung compared: functionality and aesthetics in the design infringement analysis’, European Intellectual Property Review (EIPR) 2013, 35(5)
Lionel Bently’The return of industrial copyright?’, EIPR 2012, 34(10))
Jose J. IzquierdoPeris’OHIM practice in the field of invalidity of registered Community designs’, EIPR 2008, 30(2)
ACID (Anti Copying in Design) newsletters www.acid.eu.com<http://www.acid.eu.com>

Core texts
•    Bainbridge, Intellectual Property (Longman)
•    Colston& Galloway, Modern Intellectual Property Law (Routledge)
•    Cornish, Llewelyn&AplinIntellectual Property (Sweet & Maxwell)
•    Holyoak&Torremans, Intellectual Property Law (OUP)
•    Waelde, Laurie, Brown, Kheria, & Cornwell, Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law & Policy (OUP)

Website and blog resources
www.ipo.gov.uk
www.ep.espacenet.com
http://www.bl.uk/pdf/patspec.pdf
http://acid.eu.com/
http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en
http://oami.europa.eu/en/default.htm
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/
http://www.acid.eu.com/news/category/acid-in-print/
http://class-99.blogspot.co.uk
the European Patent Office patent database. This is accessible from the Intellectual Property Office website, or via www.ep.espacenet.com