©-LAW

Is there a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the  InfoSoc Directive  by the operator of a website  [The Pirate Bay, TPB] , if no protected works are available on that website, but a system exist by means of which metadata on protected works which is present on the users’ computers is indexed and categorised for users, so that the users can trace and upload and download the protected works on the basis thereof? This is the principal question that the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad der Nederlanden) referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in  Stichting Brein , C-610/15 . As readers will promptly recall, this is just the last in a(n impressive, quantity-wise) series of references for a preliminary ruling seeking clarification on the interpretation of the right of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive, the most immediate precedents being  GS Media   [Kat-cov...

Readers with a fancy for online IP enforcement will remember that last July the Court of Appeal of England and Wales issued its  decision  in  Cartier and Others v BSkyB and Others  [ here ] , in which it upheld the 2014  decision  of Arnold J in the High Court  [ here  and  here ]  that blocking injunctions are also available in trade mark cases under the general power recognised by  s37(1)  of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA) .  This provision states that “ [t]he High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction … in all cases in which it appears to be just and convenient to do so .” The missed implementation of Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive UK Government, in fact, implemented Article 8(3) of the  InfoSoc Directive  into UK law by inserting  s97A  into the CDPA, and UK courts have ever since developed a consistent and thoughtful jurisprudence on the app...

When producing a piece of legal/IP analysis substance is of course important, but so is its presentation. I have finished marking the scripts of my IP students for this semester and - like every year - there are some common mistakes that tend to be made repeatedly. Apart from some confusion as regards use of something like  "its" and "it's"  here are the top formal  [but also substantial!]  mistakes that should be avoided  [and yet appear also in texts produced by qualified lawyers ...] : Ps: if you are wondering what the ECLI  [European Case Law Identifier]  citation system is, take a look  here . [Originally published on the IPKat on 1 February 2017]