Copyright Law and Legislation in the UK
1. Copyright is considered to be a legal right that secures and protects the use of work once an idea has been expressed. The present legislation on copyright in the UK is considered to be the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and it offers a framework on the rules and regulations of a work that can be used. It also sets out the rights of the owner and along with such the responsibilities of the other individuals who want to use the work. Therefore, the statute tries to set certain rules for copying as well as changing and selling the work or sharing it online along with renting it to someone in order to prevent any kind of misuse of the work of the owner (Lim 2018).
The case of LB (Plastics) Ltd. v. Swish Products Ltd. [1979] RPC 551 is concerned with the copyright infringement regarding the physical object of a drawing as such is considered to be demonstrating an object. The Section 51 of the statute Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 had been implemented in order to reduce the applicability of the rule by stating that it is a copyright infringement if the design or the drawings were considered to be depict an artistic work or a typeface. It can also be observed through the case of British Leyland Motor Corp. v Armstrong Patents Co [1986] 1 A.C. 577, [1986] 1 All E.R. 850.
2. A patent is considered to be a legal right that is granted through the Intellectual Property Office in UK for a new invention. This helps and permits the owner of the patent to take any kind of legal action against individuals who use the invention without any kind of permission. This right is supposed to help in offering a maximum life time in several countries in the form of twenty years from the date of the patent application. Therefore, the automatic right is not given to the owner for the invention but the permission to use that invention is given after reviewing its originality. In order to obtain a patent in today’s law in UK, the invention needs to be demonstrated in the UK Intellectual Property Office and after deciding whether the invention is patentable the right would be granted for four years after the application is made (Duncan and Willoughby 2019). The patent as per the law provided through the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 is well-thought out to belong to the inventor until and unless the rights have been given to someone else. On the other hand, the inventor can be an employee if he makes the invention during the course of his work but in case of that the rights of the patent would be belonging to the employer. Therefore, it can be stated that the owner of the patent would have the authority to license it by permitting the others to make use of its invention (Mimler 2019).
It can be observed from the instance in connection with the case of Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd. [1982] R.P.C. 183 which was a leading House of Lords decision that elaborated on the nature of the patent in specific methods for claim construction. The Court had held that the patent needed to be read in a manner that was purposive as such concentrated on the essential characteristics of the patent. It can be perceived through a similar patent infringement case of Kirin-Amgen, Inc. v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46.
Patent Law and Its Application in the UK
3. Trademarks in simple terms are considered to be badges of origin as they are well-thought out to distinguish between the goods as well as services of one trader from the other as these goods can take several forms. Trademarks can be created in the form of slogans, logos or shapes as well as colours and sounds as this help in creating a distinction from the other traders. Therefore, it can be understood that, the trademarks help in registering the goods and services through individual subjects that are known as classes (Potts and Matthes 2020). Furthermore, it has been understood that, it is possible for the individuals to register identical as well as similar marks as long as they are distinct or having unconnected class. For instance, Swan rental cars can have trademark similar to Swan trading stores as these are different classes where the clientele is different and distinct. Therefore, there would not be any scope of confusion. In addition to this, it can also be stated that the trademarks should not be descriptive as they should prevent the usage of common surnames or geographical names as the registering company names would be based on the implication of royal patronage. This particular form of intellectual property right is supposed to be regulated through the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Thus, trademarks need to be used in a correct manner where the mark needs to identify or detect the goods as well as the services to the customers without any incorrect usage which could harm the reputation (Swaine and Morgan 2019).
It can be perceived through the instance with respect to the case of FirstRungNow Ltd (t/a FirstRungNow) v Holmes [2009] DRS 7175 where the case dealt with direct evidence regarding the confusion of witness statements. The Complainant stated that there was a problem for commencing trademark infringement proceedings against the website when the Domain Name was supposed to be an Abusive Registration. The trademark infringement was also considered to be found in the case of Deutsche Telekom AG v Lammtara Multiserve Ltd [2009] DRS 5856 where not all the trademark infringements were considered to be constituting abusive registration through the Policy as the case was considered to be innocent.
4. Design Right is considered to be a ‘sui generis’ intellectual property right under the British legal regime. However, there are two categories of design rights where the first is supposed to be inclusive of the registered design right under the Registered Designs Act 1949 and the other is the unregistered design right. These are supposed to be protected only through a three-dimensional design. Therefore, it can be stated that the design is protected when it is recorded on paper. On the other hand, the registered design right is considered to offer twenty-five years of protection as compared to the unregistered design right which is similar to the copyright that attaches itself to the new design. Nevertheless, the length in the unregistered design rights is more limited as compared to the registered one as it lasts only for ten years. This is introduced through the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Hence, the community unregistered design right is supposed to last for three years from the date through which the design is first made and along with such accessible to the public in the European Union (Derclaye 2018).
Trademark Law and Its Significance
It can be established from the instance in connection with the case of Reckitt & Colman Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 All E.R. 873 which is also known as the Jif Lemon Case as it was regarding the leading decision of passing off. However, the court had reaffirmed the three-part test of goodwill along with misrepresentation and damage that helped in constituting the claim of passing off. This was supposed to relate to the infringement of design rights in intellectual property law as well due to the nature of the case as it dealt with the design of the logo for the business.
5. Section 4(1) of the Copyrights, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 is well-thought out to set out the definition and scope of artistic work as such is inclusive of a graphic work along with photograph as well as sculpture or collage regardless of the artistic quality. It also enumerates upon the work of architecture and the work of an artistic craftsmanship.
However, as per subclause (2) the building is supposed to be comprising of a fixed structure and graphic work consists of painting, drawing along with map as well as chart or plan and diagram. It also consists of engravings as well as etching along with lithograph or woodcut and other similar works. Furthermore, the photographs are supposed to be having the meaning of recording of light or any other medium such as radiation where the image is supposed to be produced through any means that is not a part of the film. It also explains how sculpture is comprising of a cast or model that needs to be made for the purposes of a sculpture.
Therefore, the scope of the rights is considered to be to protect the owners from any kind of infringement and due to such the detailed version had been provided that would help in creating copyright protection standards as per the needs of today’s society. The Act is well-thought out to be compatible with the present practice of law as the statute helps in reinstating the law of copyrights with the help and assistance of the amendments and this creates a position of formulating fresh provision for the rights of the artists. This is supposed to be done to confer to the original designs and for developing the design rights.
However, this particular amendment is considered to create a basis for a new approach among the other jurisdictions in comparison to the intellectual property rights of UK because it would be securing the legal protection by safeguarding the economic value that would stimulate a certain level of growth as it would enable the organizations to comply with the new approach. Thus, the changes or the modifications are supposed to be beneficial as the business regarding intellectual property rights would grow through proper measures and approach and this is crucial for competing with the other businesses (McMenemy 2022).
1. a) The modern households are considered to have several automated technologies that are used as everyday home appliances. One such is considered to be a robot vacuum cleaner. However, since the cleaning has been made easier through the robot vacuum cleaners the large noises or bulky cleaners have been developed into something that is more accessible. In order to create new innovations one such innovation can be in the form of robot vacuum cleaners with air purifiers. This would help the individuals use the appliances for cleaning and keeping the air around the house fresh. It would also reduce the deficiencies.
Design Rights and Their Protection
Figure 1: Gettyimages.com. 2022
This particular invention is considered to be a modification for an existing robot vacuum cleaner. The air purifier system would be loaded inside the machine and it would be used to keep the air fresh. This can be made available in the open market through proper protection of the intellectual property rights. Since this is a slight modification of an already existing item, it would be protected under the patent law as well as the design rights as it is a new innovation that would be designed on an already existing item (Nicholls and Strengers 2019).
This would be the place where the air purifier would be located on the robot vacuum cleaner.
Therefore, it can be stated that, this product would benefit the individuals as it would be responsible for creating basic hygiene. With the technological advancement there are several ways in reducing deficiencies. This cost-effective product would create an option of limiting the cost of purchasing an air purifier and a robot vacuum cleaner separately as the services of both the products would be developed and merged into one. The developed disk-shaped robot for vacuuming purposes is considered to be create a basis for cleaning as it is controlled through the microcontroller. Hence, as a result, it can be understood that it sucks the dirt through a retractable dustbin. With the advent of the air purifier a cooling fan would be mounted that would create a basis for providing fresh air as it would be moving around the house swiftly while creating fresh air. This would make the concept of the air purifier movable as it would be on the wheels. It would be powered by four batteries which would be rechargeable and the sensor would create prospects of detecting any obstacles and such would help the robot vacuum cleaner to maneuver in the environment. Thus, this new product would be beneficial for the customers as it would be cost-effective and it would be designed in order to make the home lives of the individuals easy (Jiang et al. 2019).
2. a) The robot vacuums are considered to initially produce a lot of air through the high-powered models and this product would be used for maximum cleaning models. The design as well as the power considerations would help in creating design and engineering trials but it would be highly efficient as it would be creating a basis that would particulate the air as such is considered to be a principle tool used for air purification. This product would be in demand as the air filters along with the vacuum technology would help in meeting specifications that would particularly have the capability of trapping 99.97 percent of particles approximately. This would increase the width of human air as it would also sterilize the place by removing the dead skin cells through the cleaning process. The invention would be creating a basis for its testing as similar products such as a robot cleaner and air purifier are already in the market and the demand of such is high as it creates a safer and cleaner environment for the individuals. Therefore, if these two features are combined together then it would be in high demand in the market (Küpper et al. 2019).
Important Cases
b) The product would be helping the individuals juggle between their home life and their professional life as cleaning would become easier in spite of such being tedious. The outsourcing of labor would also not be necessary as the individuals would get the option of preventing themselves from these dull day-to-day activities. The option of using the technology in question would be more capable as well as affordable for the individuals as they would be having their own robot assistant that would be smart enough to clean the house perfectly and provide fresh and clean air in every corner of the house as it would be mobile. The uniqueness of the product lies in the features as it offers cleaning and spreading of fresh air simultaneously. The vacuum cleaner already is supposed to have a wide-reaching effect on the consumers and if it is mixed with air purifying system and technology then it would become more affordable. Thus, its values and benefits would lie in its unique proposition and USP as it would sweep, clean as well as mop and disinfect the place with dry suction and provide fresh air like the air purifier in each and every part of the house (Küpper et al. 2019).
3. a) In order to protect the idea, it needs to be patented as it is an invention. The patent law would provide individual rights to take legal action against any individual who makes as well as uses or sells and imports the product without permission. However, in order to be granted the patent, the invention needs to be something that can be made use of and it needs to be new and inventive (Liddicoat and de Werra 2019). It should not just be a simple modification for something that already exists. Although, this product in question is considered to be a modification on existing items it is new as the invention has not been in practice. When a patent protection is supposed to be granted the invention receives territorial rights. On the other hand, since it is a modification of the already existing inventions, it can be protected under the design rights (Church, Derclaye and Stupfler 2019).
b) A registered design is supposed to protect the shape as well as the appearance of the product as it gives the owner the exclusive right of design. Any product that is having a distinctive appearance is well-thought out to be protected under the intellectual property rights. Firstly, the design needs to be registered as it would be used for longer purposes. The shape and configuration need to be arranged through three-dimensional objects as such would be automatically protected under the UK law for ten years after it was first sold and fifteen years after it had been created. Thus, the registration of the design would be necessary for protection (Traub and Dennis 2020).
In case of patent there are eight steps involved where the application for the patent needs to be made and after that there would be a search for similar patents in order to make sure that the invention is considered to be new. Subsequently, after such a patent application is prepared and such is filed and requested for a search from IPO. The report for the search is provided within six months approximately and the application is continued. After such, the application is published after eighteen months and is asked for a substantive examination within the six months of publication. The response is given from the IPO for the substantive examination and it can take several years and the application after such is either granted or refused (Binns, Fox and Agnew 2018).
Conclusion
c) The Intellectual Property Office is considered to offer several distinct methods of accelerating the processing of the application and in order to speed up the patent process the patents fast grant is used as it guides the individual and provides further information about how to get patent application granted more swiftly (Sterzi, Rameshkoumar and Van Der Pol 2021). In order to speed up the process of design rights the application can be sent to a specialist for design rights and they can offer registrable rights after reviewing the basis of the urgency (Traub, and Dennis 2020).
d) Section 3 of the Patent Act 1977 (as amended) is considered to enumerate upon the inventive step. The invention therefore, is considered to involve an inventive step that would not be obvious to an individual who is skilled in the art as they would be dong so with respect to the matter that forms the basis of the art as it is done through the virtue of Section 2(2) of the statute by disregarding Section 2(3) of the Act.
In case of design right, the design of a product is considered to be protected through its shape as well as ornamentation as it is applied to such through the different types of protection. Therefore, the essential feature of the design rights is deemed to be regarding the appearance of the design in question as it has to be consisting of technical principles rather than the construction of operation. These would help in protecting the idea through effective law (Margoni 2019).
4. a) The ideas and innovations are considered to be cornerstones for a successful organization and due to such, the law protects the individuals and the organizations from anything that is stolen or infringed upon in connection with the intellectual property. The copyright law protects the original and tangible work. In order to identify a work as original the product needs to be made through the individual’s skill as well as labor along with intellect and creation as it should not be replicating the work of someone else. The copyright infringement is governed and protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This is supposed to prevent the simple works of the authors or the owners from being replicated and used for another person’s advantage. It can be enumerated through the instance of Kenrick v. Lawrence (1890) L.R. QBD 99. On the other hand, tangible work is considered to be regarding the work and not the idea as such is not protected. It needs to be expressed in a physical form for the copyright law to be applicable (Mendis 2019). This would help in creating protection of the work. It can be grasped through the case of Donaldson v. Beckett (1774) 4 Burr 2408; 98 ER 257 where the copyright was not considered to be perpetual. Therefore, in case of copyright infringement a claim can be made by the individual and due to such claim, the matter would be taken to court in order to be disputed.
b) In order to take an action against copyright infringement the individual making use of the copyright by infringement would be provided with an injunction and along with such the copyright owner would be awarded damages due to the infringing party creating a usage of the goods and the materials of the copyright owner. In addition to this, an action for infringement of copyright can be brought through the copyright owner in UK in case of violation or infringement as such was not licensed. Therefore, the absence of exclusive license can help in bringing an action on the individual through external source such as interim and final injunctions along with damages. This would also include the account of profits as well as delivery of infringing items or destruction of such items. Furthermore, the owner would also have the authority to ask for additional damages as such can be awarded in case of flagrant infringement (Sabharinathan 2018).
References
Binns, R., Fox, N. and Agnew, J., 2018. Get Your Hands Off My Patent: Adjudication of Foreign Patents Under a Licence Agreement in the UK Court. les Nouvelles-Journal of the Licensing Executives Society, 53(3).
British Leyland Motor Corp. v Armstrong Patents Co [1986] 1 A.C. 577, [1986] 1 All E.R. 850.
Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd. [1982] R.P.C. 183.
Church, O., Derclaye, E. and Stupfler, G., 2019. An empirical analysis of the design case law of the EU member states. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 50(6), pp.685-719.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Derclaye, E., 2018. CUDR and CRDR post-Brexit from a UK and EU perspective—Will all unregistered design rights become history?. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 13(4), pp.325-331.
Deutsche Telekom AG v Lammtara Multiserve Ltd [2009] DRS 5856.
Donaldson v. Beckett (1774) 4 Burr 2408; 98 ER 257.
Duncan, G. and Willoughby, R., 2019. UK Supreme Court decides on pregabalin second medical use patent. Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst, 8(3), pp.81-85.
FirstRungNow Ltd (t/a FirstRungNow) v Holmes [2009] DRS 7175.
Gettyimages.com. 2022. Robot Vacuum Cleaners Photos and Premium High Res Pictures – Getty Images. [online] Available at: <https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/robot-vacuum-cleaners> [Accessed 30 April 2022].
Jiang, H., Yi, J., Zhou, K. and Zhu, X., 2019. A decision-making methodology for the cloud-based recycling service of smart products: a robot vacuum cleaner case study. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 32(1), pp.58-71.
Kenrick v. Lawrence (1890) L.R. QBD 99.
Kirin-Amgen, Inc. v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46.
Küpper, M., Asbach, C., Schneiderwind, U., Finger, H., Spiegelhoff, D. and Schumacher, S., 2019. Testing of an indoor air cleaner for particulate pollutants under realistic conditions in an office room. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 19(8), pp.1655-1665.
LB (Plastics) Ltd. v. Swish Products Ltd. [1979] RPC 551.
Liddicoat, J. and de Werra, J., 2019. When can exclusive licensees initiate patent infringement proceedings?—Lessons for global IP licensing transactions from two recent UK cases. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 14(1), pp.2-4.
Lim, E.C., 2018. On the Uneasy Interface between Economic Rights, Moral Rights and Users’ Rights in Copyright Law: Can Canada Learn from the UK Experience. SCRIPTed, 15, p.70.
Margoni, T., 2019. Design rights and 3D printing in the UK: Balancing innovation and creativity in a (dis) harmonised and fragmented legal framework. In 3D Printing and Beyond. Edward Elgar Publishing.
McMenemy, D., 2022, February. Tensions Between Intellectual Property Law and Freedom of Expression: A UK Perspective. In International Conference on Information (pp. 177-184). Springer, Cham.
Mendis, D., 2019. ‘Back to the future’? From engravings to 3D printing–implications for UK copyright law. In 3D Printing and Beyond. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mimler, M.D., 2019. 3D printing and patent law–a UK perspective: apt and ready?. In 3D Printing and Beyond. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Nicholls, L. and Strengers, Y., 2019. Robotic vacuum cleaners save energy? Raising cleanliness conventions and energy demand in Australian households with smart home technologies. Energy Research & Social Science, 50, pp.73-81.
Patent Act 1977.
Potts, B. and Matthes, J., 2020. More Trademark and Design Strategies for a Post-Brexit World. Managing Intell. Prop., 288, p.16.
Reckitt & Colman Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 All E.R. 873.
Registered Designs Act 1949.
Sabharinathan, T., 2018. Copyright Protection of TV Formats in the UK: Banner Universal Motion Pictures Ltd. v. Endemol Shine Group Ltd. Southampton Student L. Rev., 8, p.30.
Sterzi, V., Rameshkoumar, J.P. and Van Der Pol, J., 2021. Non-practicing entities and transparency of patent ownership in Europe: the case of UK dormant companies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 172, p.121069.
Swaine, K. and Morgan, E., 2019. A New-Look Trademark Regime for the UK. Managing Intell. Prop., 280, p.34.
Traub, F. and Dennis, G., 2020. Response Clothing: IPEC avoids drawing together the threads of copyright protection for designs in the UK and EU. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 15(11), pp.899-903.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
