Intellectual Property

This knowledge is the most likely to be covered by the law relating to
confidential information as it is a secret and is covered by implied obligations of
confidence. In contrast, B is simply the product of the employee’s experience.

Cases such as BOSS have shown that the court primarily looks at
conceptual, phonetic, and visual similarities.

Registered design right – is the most likely from this list provided the
design is registered. It will apply as long as the design is new and has individual
character and is not excluded (which seems unlikely here).
The clock is unlikely to be protected by copyright. The three dimensional works
protected by artistic copyright are works of architecture, sculptures and works of
artistic craftsmanship. None of these is likely to apply here.
The clock is unlikely to be registrable as a trade mark. Whilst shapes can be
registered, it is not possible to register ‘the shape which gives substantial value to the
goods’. This will probably exclude the clock – the whole reason for making it in this
shape is to give it ‘value’. Patents protect inventions. There is no suggestion that the
shape of the clock is inventive. (The aspect of the clock which is most likely to be
patentable is the workings inside it, though there is no suggestion here that they are
inventive either.)

Design Right cannot apply to a logo because it is two dimensional
because it must comprise ‘any aspect of the shape or configuration (whether internal
or external) of the whole or part of an article’ (CDPA s213(1)).
A logo will normally have sufficient degree of minimum effort to attract copyright
protection as an LDMA work . Trade mark protection is available to ‘any sign capable
of being represented graphically which is capable of distinguishing goods or services
of one undertaking from those of other undertakings’ (TMA s1(1)). Registered
designs protect the visible, external, appearance, during ordinary use, of all or any
part of a product. A logo would fall within this definition provided it is used on a
product.

The fitting is intended to be placed around the bulb, and so
is excluded. Put simply, little or no design fiair has been shown by the
designer as a consequence. Section 1D concerns public policy or morality,
which is not relevant here.

If you want to protect surface decoration, you can register the
design or use copyright, but UK unregistered design right specifically
excludes surface decoration.

Both rights can subsist in the same design at the same time.

Component parts of complex products have 'individual
character' only if they are visible during normal use (s1B(8)(a) Registered
Designs Act 1949).

SB Designs has reproduced Argo's device mark without
permission on the bed linen and so has infringed the trade mark. This
would give Argo a number of remedies, including, interim and 昀椀nal
injunctions, damages/account of profits, erasure, delivery up and
destruction. Since clause 3.2 prevents SB Designs from reproducing the
device mark on anything other than T-Shirts (being the "Licensed Goods"),
SB Designs is also in breach of contract. This would entitle Argo to
terminate the agreement and claim damages. The remedies for both
types of claim are broadly similar, but claiming breach of contract avoids
Argo having to prove all the elements of infringement (TMA 1994
s10(3)). In practice, however, Argo would plead both types of claim as
alternatives.

Restrictions on competition can still be individually exempted
from the prohibition in Article 101(1) by the process of legal exemption.
The block exemption merely provides a more certain route to exemption.

From this list, the transactions which do not need to be in
writing are a non-exclusive copyright licence and (perhaps surprisingly)
an exclusive patent licence.

Well done. The licensor wants to make sure that the goodwill
accrues to him rather than to the licensee and so he will want to make
sure that all goods sold under the licence refer to the fact that he is owner
of the trade mark.
He will prevent the mark from becoming misleading by controlling the
quality of the goods to which it is applied.

The employee will have gained skill and experience whilst
working for the employer, and this is not something which the employer
can use the law of confidentiality to stop the employee exploiting in the
future. In these circumstances, the employer may consider inserting a
restrictive covenant in the contract, however these must be limited in
scope.

If a hovercraft engineer would be able to observe the
invention in action, this is likely to constitute a disclosure. It makes no
difference that no hovercraft engineer actually sees it.

Para 23.6.3 in your manual explains that they should be read
using this mixed approach.

section 60(5) (b).

Only the process is patentable, as the rest are excluded as
such by s1 Patents Act 1977. Some of them are patentable in other
countries, for example, business models are patentable in the US.

Passing off must involve commercial activity. The last
option was not passing off as the software cannot have goodwill if not
launched yet.

The misrepresentation as to the quality of a product does
not always make a link with rival products, and so is not always relevant
for passing off, however it may do when there is a small group of
producers who use the advertising feature (e.g. the use of the word
"champagne" name for sparkling wine). The other items all make a link
with the goodwill of others.

(i) Goodwill must be shown so that the claimant has established
something which is capable of being taken advantage of;
(ii) a misrepresentation must be shown as this is the act of the alleged
infringer which causes confusion in the minds of the customer; and
(iii) damage must be shown so that a claim can be quantified.

An orange would be excluded as it is the shape of the
object being sold, a key and the blades would be excluded as achieving a
technical result, but the bottle is capable of registration. The only query
here is whether the bottle should be excluded as a shape which gives substantial value to the goods. This is a difficult exception to apply, but it
is unlikely that the bottle here would add substantial value, even if
distinctive (cf a perfume bottle perhaps?).

Similarity with existing marks is a relative ground for
refusal.

TM actions can be quicker, cheaper, do not require the
showing of goodwill for a prima facie claim (although it can affect the
level of compensation), TMs often avoid infringement in the first place. They are not more fiexible than passing off in terms of what is protected,
however, as only what is registered is protected.

Notice that the words are quite broad in scope. This has
enabled registration of items which were incapable of being registered
under the previous legislation, such as the Coca-Cola bottle. Note that the
word graphically used to appear in s1 but was replaced with capable of
appearing on the register in 2019.

Copyright has a longer duration (typically 70 years from
the death of the author) as it is considered to be a stronger right than
database right. Copyright covers items which involve more creativity than
database right, which protects compilations of information.

For a trade mark action, only the protected words are
relevant. However, how they look, sound, and any concepts behind them
are all factors which the court takes into account in assessing similarity.

Anything new about the way in which the camera works
may be patentable, whereas the shape is the realm of design right.

A passing off action is possible. Potentially the most
important factor is the sales of your client's product made by the
supermarket. A lot of alleged infringements by supermarkets are not
pursued by well-known household names due to the potential damage to
the trading relationship that a legal action would cause. Do not forget
commercial points in dealing with intellectual property issues.
Dealing with legal issues, confusion in the minds of the customers aids
trade mark and passing off actions, whereas a lack of a trade mark
registration would only affect a trade mark action - it would not affect a
passing off action. Finally, a loss of sales would help in quantifying the
amount of damages to be awarded under either action.

The contents - the formula for Coke is capable of patent protection
provided that they could show that it is new and inventive. It is likely that
this test would have been satisfied by the new formula. In fact, Coca-Cola
have not applied for patent protection, preferring instead to keep the
formula a secret. In this regard, the common law right of Confidential
Information could be used if the formula is disclosed e.g. by employees of
the company.
The label - artwork on the label would benefit from Copyright protection
provided it was original. The stylised way Coca-Cola is written could
benefit from this. Trade Mark law would of course be relevant for the name (including the way it is written). Finally, Passing Off could be used if
someone used a similar name or made their label look confusingly similar.

A list of customers could theoretically gain copyright protection, however
it may have difficulty overcoming the requirement that intellectual effort
was used to create it. A more likely right would be Database Right, which gives 15 years protection for information which is organised in a
systematic way (presumably here it would be alphabetical).

There is a difference in the way trade secrets and
'confidential information' are treated. Confidential information 'in the
head' of the ex-employee will not be subject to an implied obligation of
confidence, whereas all trade secrets will be.

Registered Design Right will not protect designs which are
dictated by the product's technical function, according to the Registered
Designs Act 1949, s1C(1). This would be the case where the product's
functional requirements mean the designer had no choice as to how it
looked.

The design on the top of the pie is not going to be visible before sale as
it is in a box. There cannot therefore be confusion at or before the point of sale.

There has been no infringement. The rights of Falmouth Limited were
exhausted when it put the cereal on the market in Belgium through Granville SA. It
cannot now use its trade mark to prevent Granville from importing the cereal into the
UK.

If the rights of Falmouth Limited had not been exhausted, all of the other answers
would have been correct.

None of the other answers satisfy the basic requirements for copyright. A
is pirated, C lacks intellectual effort, and D is a unlikely to show artistic merit nor be
original.

This knowledge is the most likely to be covered by the law relating to
confidential information as it is a secret and is covered by implied obligations of
confidence. In contrast, B is simply the product of the employee’s experience.

Cases such as BOSS have shown that the court primarily looks at
conceptual, phonetic, and visual similarities.

Any obligation within Article 5 is not exempt under TTBE, but, provided it
can be severed from the rest of the agreement, its presence will not render the whole
agreement anti-competitive. By contrast, and obligation that falls within Article 4 will
render the whole agreement void.

After selling or otherwise disposing of their copyright, authors can still
insist on being identified as the author. This is particularly relevant for written works
and art.

Registered design right – is the most likely from this list provided the
design is registered. It will apply as long as the design is new and has individual
character and is not excluded (which seems unlikely here).
The clock is unlikely to be protected by copyright. The three dimensional works
protected by artistic copyright are works of architecture, sculptures and works of
artistic craftsmanship. None of these is likely to apply here.
The clock is unlikely to be registrable as a trade mark. Whilst shapes can be
registered, it is not possible to register ‘the shape which gives substantial value to the
goods’. This will probably exclude the clock – the whole reason for making it in this
shape is to give it ‘value’. Patents protect inventions. There is no suggestion that the
shape of the clock is inventive. (The aspect of the clock which is most likely to be
patentable is the workings inside it, though there is no suggestion here that they are
inventive either.)

Design Right cannot apply to a logo because it is two dimensional
because it must comprise ‘any aspect of the shape or configuration (whether internal
or external) of the whole or part of an article’ (CDPA s213(1)).
A logo will normally have sufficient degree of minimum effort to attract copyright
protection as an LDMA work . Trade mark protection is available to ‘any sign capable
of being represented graphically which is capable of distinguishing goods or services
of one undertaking from those of other undertakings’ (TMA s1(1)). Registered
designs protect the visible, external, appearance, during ordinary use, of all or any
part of a product. A logo would fall within this definition provided it is used on a
product.

In copyright and design right law, ‘primary’ infringement means doing
any of the ‘restricted acts’ (i.e. copying, etc.). ‘Secondary’ infringement means dealing
in copies, etc., and normally requires a degree of knowledge of the primary
infringement to be actionable. There are criminal sanctions for IPR infringement,
though the course has mainly focused on the rights of the IPR owner, in civil
proceedings.

A formula for a new drug should be protected by way of a UK patent. This would give the company 20 years of protection against anyone who tried to create, sell, or import the drug. E昀昀ectively it gives a complete monopoly over the drug in the UK.

If an enabling disclosure has not occurred, then the
invention may still be patentable, as it has not become part of the state of
the art.

Copyright can cover works such as sculptures and works of
artistic craftsmanship. However the test for the latter work to be
protected is stringent, and so not all works will be protected.

The fitting is intended to be placed around the bulb, and so
is excluded. Put simply, little or no design fiair has been shown by the
designer as a consequence. Section 1D concerns public policy or morality,
which is not relevant here.

Copyright can subsist in a design that is protected by
registration, and vice versa - though there will not always be both forms
of protection.

If you want to protect surface decoration, you can register the
design or use copyright, but UK unregistered design right specifically
excludes surface decoration.

Since October 2014, the rules on ownership of design right
have been the same as for copyright. Employers own the rights in works
and designs created by employees but there are no special rules about
commissioned works or designs.

See section 7(1) of the Registered Designs Act and Article 10 of the
Community Designs Regulation.

Section 213(4) tells us that a design will not be considered
original if it is commonplace.

Both rights can subsist in the same design at the same time.

Component parts of complex products have 'individual
character' only if they are visible during normal use (s1B(8)(a) Registered
Designs Act 1949).

SB Designs has reproduced Argo's device mark without
permission on the bed linen and so has infringed the trade mark. This
would give Argo a number of remedies, including, interim and 昀椀nal
injunctions, damages/account of profits, erasure, delivery up and
destruction. Since clause 3.2 prevents SB Designs from reproducing the
device mark on anything other than T-Shirts (being the "Licensed Goods"),
SB Designs is also in breach of contract. This would entitle Argo to
terminate the agreement and claim damages. The remedies for both
types of claim are broadly similar, but claiming breach of contract avoids
Argo having to prove all the elements of infringement (TMA 1994
s10(3)). In practice, however, Argo would plead both types of claim as
alternatives.

Under an exclusive licence, SB Designs gets the
exclusive right to reproduce the device mark on T-shirts (but not in any
other way). It can also sue any third party which infringes its rights to
reproduce the device mark on T-shirts (but, again, not in any other way).
Note that SB Design's right to sue Argo for reproducing the device mark
on T-shirts would be a claim for breach of the exclusivity provision in the
contract between them.

Restrictions on competition can still be individually exempted
from the prohibition in Article 101(1) by the process of legal exemption.
The block exemption merely provides a more certain route to exemption.

From this list, the transactions which do not need to be in
writing are a non-exclusive copyright licence and (perhaps surprisingly)
an exclusive patent licence.

The reason why he wants control over how the
mark is reproduced is mainly to stop it becoming generic.
He will try to protect the value of the goodwill in his mark and prevent it
from becoming misleading by controlling the quality of the goods to which
the mark is applied.

Well done. The licensor wants to make sure that the goodwill
accrues to him rather than to the licensee and so he will want to make
sure that all goods sold under the licence refer to the fact that he is owner
of the trade mark.
He will prevent the mark from becoming misleading by controlling the
quality of the goods to which it is applied.

The UK patent has not been infringed. According to Centrafarm
BV v Sterling Drug Inc, the 'specific subject matter' of a patent is the
exclusive right to manufacture and put industrial products into circulation.
Mr Potts has done this (via his Netherlands licensee). Once the products
have been put onto the market, his rights are exhausted and he cannot
object to what is done with them.

well done. Where IP rights conflict with the free movement of
goods or competition law, the rights can be enforced only to the extent of
their 'specific subject matter'. This is the doctrine of 'exhaustion of rights'.
(Note that it is Article 34 and not Article 36 which prevents the exercise of
rights which would hinder the free movement of goods; Article 36
provides an exception for 'industrial property rights' but caselaw limits
this to the extent of their 'specific subject matter'.)

Aphrodite has reproduced Diana's work without permission
and so has infringed her copyright. (There is nothing in the agreement which prevents Aphrodite from reproducing the painting on coffee mugs
so there is no breach of the agreement.)

Damages and an account of profits will compensate the
owner of the information for losses suffered due to the disclosure, but it
will not stop the information getting into the public domain. Whilst an
injunction will not necessarily achieve this aim, it is the most likely to.

A springboard injunction prevents ex-employees making
use of confidential information gained during their period of
employment. It does not stop them working for rivals (although this may
be catered for in other areas of law i.e. restrictive covenants).
Where rival companies gain the information, a springboard injunction can
be used against them only where the information is given to them in
breach of the law of confidence.

Yes, most software houses will regard the source code - the version of the
program that programmers can work with - as confidential.

The Supremes specifically rejected the appellant's argument
which they said would have led to strict liability. The defendant has to be
aware of the breach of confidence.

Yes, that was how Megarry VC decided the Guinle case, considering that
the former employee should not be allowed to benefit from inequitable
conduct.

The employee will have gained skill and experience whilst
working for the employer, and this is not something which the employer
can use the law of confidentiality to stop the employee exploiting in the
future. In these circumstances, the employer may consider inserting a
restrictive covenant in the contract, however these must be limited in
scope.

The obligation would only be imposed in respect of a trade
secret. All other forms of information would require an express obligation
of confidence.

If a hovercraft engineer would be able to observe the
invention in action, this is likely to constitute a disclosure. It makes no
difference that no hovercraft engineer actually sees it.

Para 23.6.3 in your manual explains that they should be read
using this mixed approach.

The patent system protects the technical aspect of an
invention, not the underlying idea or the computer program which makes
it work.

section 60(5) (b).

This is the test from the Court of Appeal case, Windsurfing
International v Tabur Marine. The idea is that the technician is aware of
what is in the present state of the art, but does not have the imagination
to take the technology further himself.

Only the process is patentable, as the rest are excluded as
such by s1 Patents Act 1977. Some of them are patentable in other
countries, for example, business models are patentable in the US.

As of June 2023, it is also possible to use the European Patent
system to obtain a unitary patent (also known as a European patent with
unitary effect).

This is not true. A patent may be revoked for many reasons,
including lack of novelty or lack of inventive step, insufficiency, and
impermissible amendment.

This is the incorrect statement. The same principles apply to
advertising slogans and catchphrases as to names. However much time
and effort has been spent, it is difficult to meet the minimum effort
requirement and so the slogan will probably not constitute a 'work'
capable of protection by literary copyright. The best option is to try to
protect the slogan by registering it as a trade mark (although this may not
always be possible either). However, the exact boundaries of copyright
protection are not always certain, and the courts have occasionally held
that copyright does subsist in certain slogans.

Under s.9(1) CDPA the "author" of a work is the person who creates
it. Under s.11(1) CDPA 1988 the author of a work is the first owner of any
copyright in it. However, where the work is made by an employee in the
course of his/her employment, the employer is the first owner any
copyright. This is subject to any agreement to the contrary - see s.11(2).

Always remember that more than one category of copyright may be
relevant in relation to a particular item. Here literary copyright would
protect the words of the song and musical copyright would protect the
music: s.3(1) CDPA. (These are both LDMA works.)
The recording would be a 'sound recording' under s.5A(1) and when it was
played on the radio it would come within the definition of a 'broadcast'
under s.6(1). (These are both entrepreneurial works.)

Although there is no requirement of originality or minimum effort for
sound recordings, there is no copyright in a sound recording to the extent
that it is a mere copy of another sound recording, so Eddie will not own
the copyright (see s.5A(2) CDPA 1988). He will be liable for primary
infringement, regardless of whether or not he knew that the recording
was copyright. It is irrelevant that he only intends the copy for his own
personal use.

Very little artistic merit is required for artistic copyright to arise - see
s.4(1)(a). Even if the designs were 'minimalist', nevertheless the
arrangement/choice of colour for the lines and squares would be enough
to ensure that the designs were protected. Copyright is infringed if a
'substantial part' of a work is copied. The test is qualitative rather than
quantitive. If an important element of the designs has been taken, then it
would not matter that this was only a small part. Copyright would
normally belong to Decorum, as Charlotte's employer (although you would
have to check for any contrary agreement).
There is a rebuttable presumption that copying has taken place
where the work is sufficiently similar to the claimant's and the defendant
had the opportunity to copy. This will amount to primary infringement. It
is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the work was
subject to copyright. However, the presumption can be rebutted by the
defendant proving that they did not in fact copy the original.

The general rule is that copyright lasts for 70 years from the end of the
year in which the author of the work (here Charlotte) dies. (The author
will not necessarily be the first owner.)

Damages and an account of profit would not both be
available, as the claimant would effectively be compensated twice. An
injunction however could also be granted as its aims are different - to
ensure that the infringing act does not happen again.

Confusion as to association is a valid ground for a passing
off action, rather than a defence.

That's correct. If in the same line of business, once the first two elements
are proven, it is almost certain that damage has followed. Quantum is
another issue which will still need to be assessed.

Passing off must involve commercial activity. The last
option was not passing off as the software cannot have goodwill if not
launched yet.

The two types of damage are loss of profit and damage to reputation. The
alleged infringer may have gained sales which would otherwise be sales
of the claimant, and it may sell goods which are inferior to those of the
claimant

If the customer is not confused, no loss can have been
suffered by the claimant, as the customer has in fact purchased what
he/she wanted to buy

In a passing off action, there are no registrations, so you
have to establish your case from scratch.

The misrepresentation as to the quality of a product does
not always make a link with rival products, and so is not always relevant
for passing off, however it may do when there is a small group of
producers who use the advertising feature (e.g. the use of the word
"champagne" name for sparkling wine). The other items all make a link
with the goodwill of others.

The chocolates inside the box would not cause a
misrepresentation at the correct point in time, as if they are not visible at
or before the point of sale, they cannot cause confusion to the customer
in a way which would influence the sale.

(i) Goodwill must be shown so that the claimant has established
something which is capable of being taken advantage of;
(ii) a misrepresentation must be shown as this is the act of the alleged
infringer which causes confusion in the minds of the customer; and
(iii) damage must be shown so that a claim can be quantified.

By s5(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, Floidex can prevent
registration of Holbeck's mark if it can show that it would be able to
prevent its use by virtue of any rule of law. The 'rule' in this case is the law of passing off, though in other cases there might be other
possibilities, such as copyright or design right.

Although the Boss case concerned an opposition to an application to
register a mark under the relative grounds in s5(2)(b) TMA 1994, it is also
used when assessing similarity and confusion in infringement actions
under s10(2) TMA 1994.
The hearing officer in the Boss case applied a two-part test. First, it is
necessary for the claimant to show that the marks are either visually,
phonetically or conceptually similar. If any one of these aspects of
similarity is found then, secondly, the claimant has to go on to prove the
likelihood of confusion. The starting point for the court is that the
likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking account of all
relevant factors, and that the average consumer normally perceives a
mark as a whole, and does not proceed to analyse its various details. This
follows from the earlier decision in Sabel BV v Puma AG. The decision in
Boss also reflected another guideline from the Sabel case, in that there is
a greater likelihood of confusion where the earlier mark has a highly
distinctive character.

There are many marks on the register which fail to be a
commercial success but they remain on the register unless revoked for
another reason, or if renewal fees are not paid after 10 years.

The marks are similar. If the goods are identical or similar
then Seacroft can prevent registration under Trade Marks Act 1994 s5(2)
as long as it can also prove likelihood of confusion. It is a question of fact
whether the goods are identical or similar.
There is therefore no need to prove that the goods are identical, and
Seacroft is unlikely to be able to show this.

An orange would be excluded as it is the shape of the
object being sold, a key and the blades would be excluded as achieving a
technical result, but the bottle is capable of registration. The only query
here is whether the bottle should be excluded as a shape which gives substantial value to the goods. This is a difficult exception to apply, but it
is unlikely that the bottle here would add substantial value, even if
distinctive (cf a perfume bottle perhaps?).

The interesting one is "Kick" which may be registrable for
the vodka drink but not for the football. This rests on the fact that it would
be a description of the intended purpose for the football, but this is less
obvious for the vodka drink.

Similarity with existing marks is a relative ground for
refusal.

TM actions can be quicker, cheaper, do not require the
showing of goodwill for a prima facie claim (although it can affect the
level of compensation), TMs often avoid infringement in the first place. They are not more fiexible than passing off in terms of what is protected,
however, as only what is registered is protected.

Notice the fiexibility of s10(3) in that it is available in
situations which are nevertheless covered by s10(2). So a trade mark
owner may have a choice of either showing confusion, or alternatively
showing detriment/unfair advantage.

Notice that the words are quite broad in scope. This has
enabled registration of items which were incapable of being registered
under the previous legislation, such as the Coca-Cola bottle. Note that the
word graphically used to appear in s1 but was replaced with capable of
appearing on the register in 2019.

Copyright has a longer duration (typically 70 years from
the death of the author) as it is considered to be a stronger right than
database right. Copyright covers items which involve more creativity than
database right, which protects compilations of information.

For a trade mark action, only the protected words are
relevant. However, how they look, sound, and any concepts behind them
are all factors which the court takes into account in assessing similarity.

Anything new about the way in which the camera works
may be patentable, whereas the shape is the realm of design right.

Design drawings will be copyrighted, whereas the brand
name for the camera may be the subject of a trade mark.

A passing off action is possible. Potentially the most
important factor is the sales of your client's product made by the
supermarket. A lot of alleged infringements by supermarkets are not
pursued by well-known household names due to the potential damage to
the trading relationship that a legal action would cause. Do not forget
commercial points in dealing with intellectual property issues.
Dealing with legal issues, confusion in the minds of the customers aids
trade mark and passing off actions, whereas a lack of a trade mark
registration would only affect a trade mark action - it would not affect a
passing off action. Finally, a loss of sales would help in quantifying the
amount of damages to be awarded under either action.

The contents - the formula for Coke is capable of patent protection
provided that they could show that it is new and inventive. It is likely that
this test would have been satisfied by the new formula. In fact, Coca-Cola
have not applied for patent protection, preferring instead to keep the
formula a secret. In this regard, the common law right of Confidential
Information could be used if the formula is disclosed e.g. by employees of
the company.
The label - artwork on the label would benefit from Copyright protection
provided it was original. The stylised way Coca-Cola is written could
benefit from this. Trade Mark law would of course be relevant for the name (including the way it is written). Finally, Passing Off could be used if
someone used a similar name or made their label look confusingly similar.

Design Rights may be the most obvious as the design is
unique and the product is identi昀椀able by it. The design is also capable of
Trade Mark protection as a shape which identi昀椀es the manufacturer -
indeed it is registered under the 1994 UK Trade Marks Act. Finally, if
someone copied the design, Coca-Cola could sue them under the common
law of Passing Off as their goodwill in the design would have been harmed
by the misrepresentation as to origin.

The statement is incorrect. Reg Keeland will own the copyright
in his translation as a literary work, as long as it meets the requirements
of originality, minimum e昀昀ort and recording. Larsson's estate (or any
assignee of the copyright) will own the copyright to the original Swedish
work.
By translating it, Keeland is adapting it and this would be an
infringement under ss.21(1) and 21(3)(a)(i) CDPA 1988 unless he obtained permission of the copyright owner (as he will have done), but this does
not prevent him from owning copyright in his translation.
Note: copying Keeland's translation will also infringe copyright in Larsson's
original book as this is indirect copying.

Under s.9(1) and s.11(1) CDPA 1998, authorship leads to ownership. If
work has been commissioned then the copyright rests with the author,
not the party commissioning the work. The Adco Agency will therefore
own the copyright in the brochures.
However, Decorum can purchase the copyright from Adco by
assignment. In the absence of an assignment, a licence (i.e. permission to
use) would usually be implied, as otherwise Decorum would be prevented
from using the work that it has commissioned and for which it has paid.

A list of customers could theoretically gain copyright protection, however
it may have difficulty overcoming the requirement that intellectual effort
was used to create it. A more likely right would be Database Right, which gives 15 years protection for information which is organised in a
systematic way (presumably here it would be alphabetical).

The unique shape of a chair would be protectable by both Unregistered
and Registered Design Rights. It would have to be new and create a
different overall impression from other chairs to be registrable, whereas it
would only have to be original to gain Unregistered protection. Duration
would be up to 15 years for Unregistered and up to 25 years for
Registered.

A formula for a new drug should be protected by way of a UK patent. This
would give the company 20 years of protection against anyone who tried
to create, sell, or import the drug. E昀昀ectively it gives a complete
monopoly over the drug in the UK.