The Alliance Against IP Theft & Action for Children are holding their annual Biq Quiz night on 3 November 2011 at Lords Cricket Ground. Ticket prices are as follows:

• Individual Ticket: £125 plus vat
• Team of 8 players: £950 plus vat
• Tour of Lords: £15 per person plus vat

If you would like to attend the Big Quiz either as an individual or a team please download and fill in the registration form – Big Quiz Night Registration Form

Return registration form to Jenny Fraser:

Via email: jenny.fraser@actionforchildren.org.uk

Via post to ACTION FOR CHILDREN, 10 Great Queen Street, London, WC2B 5DG

ACID (Anti Copying in Design) welcomes the latest Government initiative with their announcement to raise business awareness to avoid falling foul of current IP laws. There are now clear guidelines to provide companies with up to date employee information to ensure that they are not breaking the law. Baroness Wilcox, Minister of Intellectual Property, who launched the new initiative said, “The new guidance was an example of Government, enforcement agencies and industry working together and raising awareness of managing IP in the workplace. Intellectual Property rights are essential to the success and growth of any business. However, many companies can leave themselves open to prosecution if they or their staff infringe the IP rights belonging to other companies or individuals.”

To avoid criminal offences (and potential fines of up to £50,000 and/or a possible prison sentence) taking place in the workplace employers should take a simple IP Health Check. If the answer is “NO” to the questions below, immediate, free and simple guidance is available on the IPO website

• Do your employees know that they cannot sell copies of protected works?
• Company IT equipment and servers – Are your staff aware that it should not be used to produce infringing content?
• Are employees aware that they should not use the company equipment to sell infringing products to colleagues?
• Do you have a company policy for staff on IPR infringement, procurement?

Dids Macdonald, ACID’s CEO said, “Taking time to look at these guidelines will help businesses protect themselves from legal challenge and, I hope, raise awareness about corporate responsibility and respect for IP. This comes as a very welcome addition to ACID’s Guidelines for Design Buyers which was launched several years ago to help design buyers through what they could and should be doing to protect themselves and their staff from infringing the rights of design originators.”

The European Patent Office (EPO) is offering three 2-day workshops this November with a selection of topics from over 60 teaching hours of recently updated material. This popular project is providing business advisors and TTOs with practical IP strategy training they can use when supporting their own client SMEs, entrepreneurs and start-ups. The modules cover much more than simply “how to register rights”, but rather discuss the business context in which IP can be commercialised. Modules on IP licensing, valuation, financing and enforcement provide a complete picture of the role IP plays in protecting and encouraging innovation.

PLEASE NOTE: each of the three workshops includes different topics.  For more information please follow the links below:

14 & 15 November – Munich, Germany
IP in Business Practice (Includes an all new module on “IP Deals in China”)

22 & 23 November – Vienna, Austria
IP Information for Business Success

29 & 30 November – Berlin, Germany
Trading IP (Includes an all new module on “IP deals in China”)

Attendance costs just €250 for each 2-day workshop – but places are limited to just 20 seats per workshop!

The EPO has recruited many of the authors of these new materials to teach what they have written, so this is a rare opportunity to be taught by the experts in the field.

IP MINISTER ISSUES INVITATION FOR DESIGNERS TO BE INVOLVED WITH FUTURE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DESIGN POLICY

ACID (Anti Copying In Design) welcomes an open invitation to the UK design sector from Baroness Wilcox, Minister for Intellectual Property, to shape future IP Design Policy, at an event held at the Design Council to encourage initial debate on what makes the design industry tick. Lady Wilcox said, “I urge the business community to participate in this call for evidence and help shape the future of design in the UK.” This could not come at a more timely moment following Professor Hargreaves recommendations that this sector of the creative industries had been neglected in the past. “Investment in design in the UK,” said Lady Wilcox, “Contributed £33 billion or 2.4% of the UK’s GDP in 2008.” 

Dids Macdonald, CEO of ACID, a panellist at today’s event said, “This is a very encouraging start but it will only be effective if the whole design sector is prepared to contribute, with real evidence and case studies to highlight some of the challenges facing design through IP infringement and Government listens and acts.  This is a huge opportunity for designers to speak out about their IP issues!”

Right, Baroness Wilcox earlier this month following a meeting with ACID Members Dan Black of Black & Blum and Rodney McMahon of Morgan Contract Furniture (also Chairman of BCFA and Honorary President of FIT) together with representatives from BDI.

Macdonald continued, “Innovation happens irrespective of IP rights but designers should demand a robust IP framework from which to achieve growth through ROI, reinforced by a realistic, cost and time effective legal framework to address infringement, with appropriate exemplary damages. Without this, growth will be eroded and jobs threatened. This, alone, would go a long way to discourage those who take the fast track to market by free riding on the back of the UK’s designers who are, undoubtedly, some of the best in the world.”

Design rights are complex. The majority of the UK’s 232,000 designers do not rely on registered rights and have less than 4 employees.  Therefore, it can be too expensive to take legal action, not to mention the debilitating negative effects which make running a small design led business almost impossible in the face of the uncertainty of potential infringement.  More importantly, Britain’s designers do not have the significant benefit that European counterparts have in being able to rely on unfair competition law.

ACID will be working closely and positively alongside the UK IPO to ensure that design’s voice is heard loudly and clearly with the creation of sound policy and tangible actions to support this important part of the economy.

Statement from IPO on 21/9/11

The Government has today issued a ‘call for evidence’ (1.31Mb) in relation to the design sector and launched a supporting online questionnaire/survey aimed at business.

Baroness Wilcox announced the publication of the first phase of research into the use of design rights in the UK. The research shows that the most intensive spenders on design in the UK are business services, manufacturing and construction sectors. Relative to other countries in Europe the UK spends significantly on design related products and services; but there is very low awareness of design rights. The research also found that registered design rights are used mainly in specific business sectors, such as furniture and clothing.

These reports are available via our IP Research area.

The full Government response (402Kb) to the Hargreaves Review, along with the IP International Approach (580Kb) and IP Crime Strategy (413Kb) are available on this website.

•  ‘Digital Opportunity: A review of intellectual property and growth’ is available on the review website.
• A full copy of the Government response to the Hargreaves Review is also available on the BIS website .
• For further information, please contact Dan Palmer on 0207 215 5303 or e-mail communications@ipo.gov.uk. 

Design Reports Workshop: 21st September at The Design Council, 34 Bow Street, London WC2E 7DL: 9:30am – 4pm

What: One day workshop
When: 21 September 2011, 9.30am – 4pm (includes lunch)
Why: An opportunity to influence policy makers on the development of policy in design rights
Where: Design Council, 34 Bow Street, London WC2E 7DL

The design sector continues to make a significant contribution to the UK economy and in promoting a positive image of UK plc overseas. However, policy makers know little about how the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) system supports this successful and innovative sector.

The workshop will debate the results of four exciting linked research projects:
Mapping design activity in the UK: Jonathan Haskel – Imperial College
Design rights and business performance: Bruce Tether – Imperial College and University of Manchester
Exploring firm behaviours surrounding rights: James Moultrie – Imperial College
International comparison of rights: UK, Germany and France – BOP

There will be a debate regarding what the research means for the future of the UK design sector and what additional evidence and research is needed to support the development of Government policy in this area.

For more information please email: Tony.Creaton@ipo.gov.uk

ACID (Anti Copying In Design) is proud to announce that the London Design Festival has recently become an ACID Event Partner. It is a great pleasure for ACID to be associated with such a prestigious and creative event, which has been running since 2003 and, which has now become one of the world’s most important annual design happenings.

Visitors to the festival’s information point, found at the Victoria & Albert museum, may pick up an ACID leaflet. The ACID team is happy to support all members exhibiting at the festival, and they may call the ACID hotline number 0845 644 3617 to speak directly to a member of the ACID team should any assistance be needed.

ACID members please let us know if you are taking part in the festival (dawn.perry@acid.uk.com)

More on the London Design Festival here: www.londondesignfestival.com

Best wishes from ACID for a fruitful and inspired festival!

ACID’s frequently asked “IP myths and howlers”….or frequently asked WRONG questions!

How do I register my copyright?

You can’t because in the UK copyright arises automatically upon the creation of a work in a tangible form (e.g. a design drawing); there is no requirement for registration. However, in the USA you can register a copyright.

Where can I patent my design?

You can’t unless you have created a new and inventive product or process. The relevant form of protection for most designs is UK design right which protects the shape and configuration of the design and unregistered Community design right which protects the shape, contours, lines, colours, texture and ornamentation of a design. Design rights arise automatically but, for stronger protection, a Registered UK or Community design can be obtained for a payment of a fee.

Visit the IPO Website

Visit the OHIM Website

If someone makes seven changes or a certain percentage change to a design it becomes a new design!

WrongI It is not the number or percentage of changes that somebody makes to your design but the importance of the elements which they have taken from your design which is important in deciding whether they have infringed your rights in your design.  This will always vary from case to case.

Registering designs is useless because if you make one slight percentage change in the design the registration is invalid

Wrong, because the test for whether a design infringes a registered design is whether it creates the same overall impression as the registered design on the informed user.  It is not simply about counting the number of elements of the design which have been reproduced or changes which have been made to it.

I want to register my design to protect the way it works

You can’t because you would have to apply for a patent rather than a design registration. However, to obtain a patent you would have to demonstrate that the way that your design works is novel and inventive.

I have protected the name of my business because I have registered the name at Company’s house

You haven’t because a registered company name does not give you rights in the name which you can enforce against third parties – for this you need a registered trade mark.

My freelance designer doesn’t have any claim to the rights in my design!

They might because if they produce a design for you, you will only own any UK unregistered design right  which might subsist in the design. There may be other IP rights in the design which you do not own, such as copyright and unregistered Community design right. If you want to own all the intellectual property rights, the best plan is to ask the freelance designer to assign these to you in a written agreement, preferably before they do any work.

If I do not include the ©2009 (name) notice on my work I will not benefit from copyright protection

Not true! In the UK copyright arises automatically when you record your original work in a tangible form. However, it is wise to include such a notice because it notifies others that you are claiming copyright in your work.

If I register a copy of the design before the originator I own the design

You don’t necessarily because whilst you will technically be the owner of the registration, the originator would be able to seek a declaration of invalidity of your registration.

I applied for a registration for my design because I own the company

Wrong! because if you created the design in the course of your employment, even with your own company, the company alone has the right to register the design. The registration will therefore be invalid.

ACID fact:

If you sign a contract without having thoroughly read all the small print, you are legally responsible. You cannot argue that you were unaware of any of the obligations that will then bind you. Your only option will be to argue that there is something fundamentally wrong with the contract, such as a failure of consideration, or a breach of the contract. Even then, the contract may be deemed only “voidable” and not totally void or invalid.

ACID case study:

An ACID member, who signed an agreement with a company called Construct Data Verlag GmbH, brought the issue to ACID’s attention as a warning to all other members to always read the small print before signing any form of contract for directories. A similar invitation has just been received by ACID from a company called Expo-Guide – Exhibitors Directory for Fairs and Exhibitions linking our name to a particular UK exhibition. In the case study, the member potentially signed to pay for a website advertising space for 3 years if a cancellation notice was not received within 3 months of the end of the third year. The agreement provided a 10-day cooling off period in which cancellation was possible so long as it was by registered post. However, the payments invoice, in this case the first indication of the error, was not received until after the 10-day period had elapsed.  Unwittingly, the ACID member signed the Agreement, without fully reading all the clauses, because the offer was sent at roughly the same time as official exhibition documentation. The confusion on the member’s part came about because Construct Data’s offer was headed Fair Guide. Without thinking, the member signed up believing their name would appear in the actual exhibition’s “list of exhibitors’ guide”.

The agreement had clear notification that the FAIR Guide was “independent, objective and not related to any organiser (sic) or marketing association”. However, this information was set out in the body of the text, in smaller print than the larger FAIR Guide heading and not immediately obvious to the reader. The actual payment terms and length of the agreement was in even smaller print.

ACID has recently received a similar mailshot from Expo-Guide. If we were to sign the contract we would be entering into a contract and paying 1271 euros per year. In the separate covering letter from Expo-Guide it says the Expo-Guide is “independent, objective and not affiliated to any fair organiser or marketing organisation”.

ACID (Anti Copying in Design) member Temple Island Collection have scored an early victory against New English Teas in the first of a two part intellectual property case heard in the Patents County Court. Having settled the original dispute about the infringement of its iconic “Red Bus” image a dispute arose about the exact scope of settlement. In addition, New English brought out a second image which Temple alleged infringed its copyright. At a case management conference in June 2011 HHJ Birss QC decided the issues relating to the settlement of the first image could be hived off and dealt with separately and on paper. The second image issue will proceed to Trial in November 2011.  Three main issues required determination relating to the settlement.

The first was the Royalties due under the settlement. New English had agreed to pay 5% of the trade sale price of all past and pending sales of the first image. Later, New English attempted to reduce the royalty on “multi-packs” by 66% on the basis that of the 3 items in the multipack only one featured the first image. Temple disagreed, saying that it was clear that the parties had in mind a 5% payment on the sale price of the product sold which included the image. HHJ Birss QC agreed with Temple, the parties had not invented some complicated mechanism to decide the royalty and Temple’s reflected the parties’ intentions when viewed objectively.

The second issue was the amount of costs payable (by New English) for drafting a licence agreement, the rival figures being £500 and £2000. HHJ Birss QC accepted Temple’s submission that the time taken to draft the licence was not the only factor but that other factors, such as expertise and the value of the document to the parties, were relevant  and awarded £1500.

The third issue was as to whether or not the settlement required New English to enter into a formal licence, and whether that licence should include an ‘open book’ accounting term. This depended upon HHJ Birss QC analysing correspondence between the two parties’ representatives, and he ruled there was no requirement to enter into a formal licence. The Judge however indicated that he would have included an open book term had he found a licence was required.

New English have had to pay over £14,000 to Temple Island for royalties and the licence agreement as well as a previous unpaid amount in costs. Andrew Lee of ACID Accredited law firm McDaniel & Co. said, “This signifies a significant moral and financial victory for Temple Island heading into the determination of the second image in a trial set for November 2011.”

Justin Fielder, Managing Director of Temple Island Collection commented “It has been a long, exasperating road to get to this point, but we were obviously justified in taking this action to protect our intellectual Property rights and are pleased the court agrees.”

Dids Macdonald, ACID’s CEO said, “HHJ Birss QC would appear to be true to his word on simplifying the legal process at the new PCC, by giving both parties tight deadlines and page limits to adhere to relating to submissions. Inevitably, this leads to a more cost and time effective resolution, in this case in favour of ACID member Temple Island.”

ACID (Anti Copying in Design) member Sarah Hendry is celebrating a success in the Patents County Court after HHJ Birss QC gave judgment in her favour against American company Falcon Collectible Miniatures, who Sarah alleged had copied five of her 1/12th scale miniature sculptures.

This case was also of note in that a witness statement from ACID CEO Dids Macdonald was part of the evidence which confirmed Sarah had filed her designs with the ACID data bank on the dates she had alleged which helped support the alleged date of creation of her animals.

Renowned and highly regarded as a sculptor for her work in producing miniatures, which are typically bought as collector’s items and used in dolls houses, Sarah Hendry has been a member of ACID since 2002. Sarah discovered that Falcon was displaying copies of her work at the Miniatura trade show at the end of 2007. Sarah contacted ACID accredited lawyers McDaniel & Co who wrote a Cease and Desist letter to Falcon who would not cease their activities and therefore Sarah commenced proceedings.

Sarah’s miniature animals are each individually hand sculpted and the creation of a new animal can take up to 2 months working 6 hours a day to perfect.  It is a time consuming process which takes a great deal of skill and labour and as Falcon were having cheap copies made in Thailand and selling these at a greatly reduced price to Sarah’s, the effect on her business was very damaging.

The Action eventually reached Trial in June 2011 and HHJ Birss entered judgment in Sarah’s favour which included a declaration that the copyright in her works had been infringed, an injunction to prevent Falcon carrying out the acts complained of in the UK and a costs award in her favour.

Andrew Lee of McDaniel & Co, who acted for Sarah, commented,  “Sarah Hendry spends a great deal of time and effort creating her works and therefore it was imperative that she took action to protect her rights. She is a ‘one man band’ and therefore finding the money to fight this case was testing. However, to allow such infringement to go unchallenged would undermine her business and make the creative effort she employs pointless.”

Dids Macdonald ACID’s CEO said, “This is a great result for Sarah and shows that small individual designers can take Action when their rights have been infringed. Let’s hope it sends a very clear message out to companies like Falcon who think they can free ride on others craftsmanship and creativity without being challenged. We are hoping that following the recent Hargreaves Review and ACID’s compelling submission, Government will introduce a Fast Track IP Small Claims Court so that micro businesses like Sarah’s will have easier access to cost and time effective IP resolution. Hopefully, time is running out for those that think they can hide behind deep legal pockets”.