I P Clinics for October

I will conduct IP Clinics in the following centres on each of the following dates between the following hours:

Day	Times	Town	Centre	Whom to Contact
1	10:00 – 12:00	Halifax	Elsie Whiteley Innovation Centre Hopwood Lane, HX1 5ER	Rebecca Gill 0845 078 0390
14	10:00 - 12:00	Barnsley	Digital Media Centre County Way, S70 2HG	Melissa Goodrich 01266 720700
16	15:00 – 17:00	Bradford	Gumption Centres Ltd. Glydegate, BD5 0BQ	Angie Walton 01274 299300
31	10:00 – 12:00	Huddersfield	The Media Centre 7 Northumberland St. HD1 1RL	Claire Stead 0870 990 5000

 An IP Clinic is a free 30-minute consultation with me or some other IP professional. Details about how they work and examples of the sort of questions upon which I am asked to advise appear on our clinic website.  These are almost the only occasions upon which busy lawyers or patent attorneys give free advice.   They are not provided or funded by Business Link or any other agency and they are nearly always over-subscribed. So if you have a slot, please keep your  appointment or cancel in sufficient time to let someone else take your place.

Copyright Overview

Copyright consists of two sets of rights, namely "economic rights" and "moral rights." Economic rights protect the value added by independent literary or artistic creation. They are exclusive rights to copy, publish, rent, lend, perform, communicate to the public or adapt a work in which copyright subsists ("copyright work"). They come into being automatically upon the creation of such a work. Moral rights protect the integrity of certain types of copyright work and the reputation of their authors.

Copyright Works
These include original artistic, dramatic, literary and musical works. They also include sound recordings, films, broadcast and typographical arrangements of published works.

Infringements
There are two kinds of copyright infringement, namely primary infringement and secondary infringement. Primary infringement is direct infringement - doing or authorizing an act restricted to the owner of the copyright ("restricted act"). Secondary infringements are indirect - selling or dealing in unlicensed copies or otherwise facilitating a primary infringement. The big difference between the two is that a mental element, such as actual knowledge or reason to believe that copyright had been infringed in making the infringing copies, is required for liability for secondary infringement.

Scope of Protection
It is important to appreciate that copyright protects value added. Thus, it frequently happens that more than one copyright may subsist in a single product. For instance, in an anthology of poems separate copyrights subsist in each poem, commentary, illustration as well as the compilation and arrangement of the poems and the layout and preparation of the publication.

Source of Law
Copyright law in the UK is codified in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The Act has been modified several times by subsequent statutes and statutory instruments. The legislation is analysed elsewhere on this website. The Act as amended implements HM government's obligations under the Berne and Universal Copyright Conventions and TRIPs as well as under various EC directives.

Subsistence
A work does not have to be "copyrighted" or even registered for copyright to subsist in the UK. The right comes into being automatically on the creation of a copyright work. The only formality is that the creator of the work ("the author") has to be a "qualifying person", that is to say a national or resident of a state that provides reciprocal copyright protection to the works of British nationals either under the Berne or Universal Copyright Convention or some other agreement.

First Ownership of Copyright
The author is usually the first owner unless he made the work in the course of his employment in which case it will belong to his employer. Works made by the Queen or by her officers or servants in the course of their duties belongs to the Crown ("Crown copyright"). Special provisions apply to works made by or under the direction of the House of Lords or House of Commons ("Parliamentary copyright").

Term
This varies according to the nature of the work and whether it was Crown or Parliamentary copyright. The term for literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works is the life of the author plus 70 years. The term for sound recordings is 50 years. In the case of films, the term is 70 years after the death of the principal director, author of the screenplay, author of the dialogue or composer of the film music whoever is the last to die. In the case of broadcasts it is 50 years. In that of typographical arrangements it is 25 years.  Crown copyright subsists for 125 years for most types of copyright work.

Assignments and Licences
Title to copyright can be transferred by assignment. Permitting things that would otherwise infringe copyright is known as licensing. Licences may be granted to a group of persons, to one person exclusively or to one person other than the licensor. Such licences are known respectively as non-exclusive, exclusive and sole licences.

Moral Rights
These are rights conferred on authors of most literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works and on directors of films. They include the right of paternity (that is to say, the right to be identified as author or director provided the right is asserted by a written instruments to that effect signed by the author or a statement in an assignment of copyright), the right of integrity (the right to object to derogatory treatment of a work) and the right against false attribution (the right not to have a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work falsely attributed). Persons who commission photographs or films for domestic purposes are entitled to object to publication, exhibition or broadcasting of the work. Moral rights are discussed in detail elsewhere on this site.

Related Rights
These include database, unregistered design and publication rights and rights in performances, all of which are discussed elsewhere.

Enforcement
An action for the infringement of copyright, database right or design right must be brought in the Chancery Division of the High Court or any county court in England and Wales to which a Chancery District Registry is attached. Like any other dispute, there is no reason why the parties should not refer the issue to arbitration.

This article first appeared on the IP/OT Update website.

Trade Marks: A Very Satisfied Client

On 12 September 2008 I mentioned a trade mark case which shows just how well the panel works.   Yesterday I received this really nice email from the client:

'I was absolutely amazed with Jane's quick grasp and understanding of our trade mark versus any merit in the opposition (which in this case was a very big company). Jane was able to advise me with confidence and knowledge that I should continue with my business and succeed at it and she believed the two marks were so different that the opposition would not stand. I felt relieved after speaking with her and could concentrate on my business. Thank you Jane

Barbara Cookson also got a pat on the back:

'I was facing a trade mark opposition from a very big company and I hadn't even started trading yet. I quickly managed to get representation and was amazed with the advice and reassurance from Barbara that the opposition had very little chance of success and it was merely a Big Brother attitude. The stance and firm position Barbara took and the brief explanation to the opposition why they could not succeed made the opposition withdraw their application within twenty four hours. I could not have got better, faster and efficient service. Well done Barbara and thank you very much.

This sort of appreciation makes it worthwhile to get up in the morning.

Legal Translation: A Useful Local Resource

I have just received the following post from Nadine Lamprecht, an ambitious and adaptable German linguist with expertise in interpreting and translation (specialsing in legal, economic and technical texts); five years of translation and interpreting studies in Germany in English, French and Spanish.

Ladies and Gentlemen

My name is Nadine Lamprecht. I have just finished my Master´s course for interpreting and translation at the Universiy of Bradford.

I am a German native speaker and have studied translation and interpreting for English and French.  During my undergraduate studies in Germany I specialised in legal, financial and business translation and during my postgraduate course at the University of Bradford I managed to gather experience in dealing with medical, technical and political translations. Furthermore, this course enabled me to get very good training as a conference interpreter for English and German.

I finished my undergraduate studies in Germany as a state-registered translator for English and French and will soon conclude my MA in interpreting and translation.

In the course of my studies, I have done some freelance work for accounting companies in Germany, individuals (translation of CVs, certificates ect.) as well as a placement with the Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance de l´Europe in Luxembourg, which is the archive of the European Union.  

With my course nearly finished now, I have decided to set up my own business as a freelance interpreter/translator and was fortunate enough to gain a place in the business support programme of the University, ThinkBusiness. I currently live in Bradford but am flexible and able to accept jobs all over the country or on the continent.

Apart from translation (English and French into German) and interpreting (English into German for simultaneous, consecutive and liaison interpreting), I also offer tuition for students of the German language and various administrative and commercial correspondence services for companies doing business with Germany and France.

I charge translation by the word, and interpreting, language tuition and other assistance services on an hourly basis. For more information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I would be glad to hear from you and work with you in the near future.

Thank you very much.

Kind Regards

Nadine Lamprecht

I have tried to upload her CV but something in Blogger’s software prevents my publishing it properly. However, I have read it and it is impressive.   Quite apart from her other skills, she knows a lot about fireworks.   You can contact her at 24 Merton Road, Bradford, BD7 1RE, call her on 07942571069 or send her an email on Nadine.M.Lamprecht@gmail.com. If you consult her, let us know how well she did.

Unregistered Design Rights: Overview

Most people know that design right is a relatively new intellectual property right which was created by Part III of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 ("CDPA") which came into force on the 1 August 1989. The right protects original designs (that is to say, the design of any aspect of the shape or configuration (whether internal or external) of the whole or part of an article. It is to be distinguished from artistic copyright that protects artistic works from reproduction under Part I of the CDPA and rights in new designs having individual character protected by registration under the Registered Designs Act 1949 as amended.

Legislative History
In its 1986 white paper, “Intellectual Property and Innovation” (Cm 9712), the government of the day recognized that the protection of functional articles under the Copyright Act 1956 was highly controversial. It noted the objections that:

• the term of protection, which was then 50 years plus the life of the author rather than the present 70, was far too long
• the existence and the term of the protection were uncertain because the right was unregistered and duration depended on the life of the author
• English law was at variance with international practice; and
• penalties for infringement were too high with the possibility of conversion damages as well as additional statutory damages.

The government considered but rejected a registration system for functional as well as aesthetic designs and an unfair copying law. Instead, it decided to "provide protection on copyright principles but without the more objectionable features of full copyright protection" such as the very long term and the possibility of conversion damages. Mindful of such cases as George Hensher Ltd. v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd. [1976] AC 64 and Merlet v Mothercare Plc [1986] RPC 115 where the claim failed because the design had not been created in a drawing, the government decided to protect original designs rather than the media in which they were first expressed. The white paper proposals were implemented by Part III of the CDPA.

Primary Infringement
The section of the CDPA that defines primary infringement of design right parallels s.16 of the same statute which defines infringement of copyright. Just as s.16 (1) lists the acts that are restricted to the owner of a copyright, s. 226 (1) provides that

"the owner of a design right in a design has the exclusive right to reproduce the design for commercial purposes -

(a) by making articles to that design, or

(b) by making a design document recording the design for the purpose of enabling such articles to be made." 

As copyright in a work is infringed by doing or authorizing any of the acts restricted by copyright (s.16 (2)), design right is infringed by doing or authorizing anything that is the exclusive right of the owner (s. 226 (3)). "Making articles to the design" is defined by s. 226 (2) as "copying the design so as to produce articles exactly to the design." The adverb "substantially" echoes s.16 (3) (a) which provides that references to the doing of an act restricted by copyright in a work are to the doing of it in relation to the work as a whole, or to any substantial part of it.

The Case Law
In terms of litigation, Part III of the Act got off to a slow start. A recent article in the European Intellectual Property Review by Lionel Bentley and Alan Coulthard identified only a handful of cases most of which were unreported. However, the law was advanced greatly by the following decisions in 1997:

• Ocular Sciences Limited v Aspect Vision Care Ltd. and Others [1997] RPC 289
• Electronic Techniques (Anglia) Ltd. v Critchley Components Ltd. [1997] FSR 401
• Parker v Tidball [1997] FSR 680 and
• Farmers Build v Carier Bulk Materials Handling (1997) 26 March (Rattee J).
  

Ocular Sciences
In Ocular Sciences the plaintiffs claimed design right in 19 "families" of lens designs. The "lenses" in each family varied in size by microscopic amounts. The plaintiffs contended that a separate design right subsisted in each and every lens design of each and every "family" and alleged that the defendants had infringed those design rights by making contact lenses to some 200 of those designs. Laddie J found that there had been no copying but added that the claim would have failed on the following grounds:

• design right in any feature that enabled a lens to be inserted into an eye was excluded by the "must fit" or "interface" exception of s. 213 (3) (b) (i) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 ("the CDPA"), and
• all other features of shape and configuration on which the plaintiffs relied were "commonplace" within the meaning of sub-section (4).

Critchley
The plaintiff claimed design right in the designs of a plastic box and a magnetic core and plastic bobbin that it contained. The defendant relied on the previously mentioned "must fit" exception. The plaintiff applied to strike out that part of the defence on the ground that the exception did not apply to a component of the relevant article. Laddie J dismissed its application holding that the exception might apply to internal components.

Parker v Tidball
The designs in which the plaintiff claimed design right were of 6 leather cases for mobile telephones. The defendant relied on the "must fit" and "commonplace" exceptions. The deputy judge considered the design features of each of those cases holding that design right subsisted in some of those features but not in others. He concluded that the defendant had copied several features in which design right subsisted.

Farmers Build
The plaintiff commissioned the defendant to design and make a slurry separator based on existing designs but with some features of its own. Before the contract was performed the defendant terminated it owing to the plaintiff's financial difficulties and started to manufacture its own machine. The defendant's machine was similar to the one that it had been commissioned to produce. The plaintiff claimed that design right subsisted in the machine as a whole and in each of its components, that it had acquired those rights by virtue of its commission and that the defendant had infringed those design rights by making a machine and components to the plaintiff's design. Rattee J agreed that design right subsisted in those designs, that the plaintiff owned them and that the defendant had infringed them, but he gave judgment to the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff had acquiesced in the infringement.

Comment
An interesting feature of those cases is the different approaches as to whether or not there had been an infringement. When considering whether a copyright has been infringed an English court will take the work as a whole and see what (if anything) has been taken. If it is a "substantial part" - that is to say, a qualitatively important part of a work - then, absent other defences, there is an infringement. A very small part of a work can be substantial. In Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd. [1982] RPC 69 Graham J suggested obiter at 79 that the noun "Jabberwock" could be a "substantial part" of Lewis Carol's "Through the Looking Glass". By contrast, if what has been taken is unoriginal it cannot be a "substantial part" however long it may be because copyright subsists only in original works. The best example of that approach isWarwick Film Productions Ltd. v Eisinger [1969] 1 Ch 508 where the material that had been reproduced was the transcript of a trial. The advantage of this approach is obvious from a comparison of English and American case law. In America there is often considerable argument over whether copyright subsists in a fragment of a work and the courts have had to devise complex filtration tests to identify illicit reproduction.

As it was the legislature's intention that copyright principles should be applied, a similar approach might have been expected in copyright cases. According to the article by Mr. Bentley and Mr. Coulthard, Rattee J adopted that approach in Farmers Build. They say that he held that design right subsisted in a composite configuration of three machine parts notwithstanding that a feature of one of those parts was excluded from protection by the "must fit" exception and another was excluded by the "commonplace" exception. However, Mr. Robert Englehart QC rook a very different approach in Parker v Tidball. He took as his starting point the following words of Laddie J from his judgment in Ocular Sciences at page 432:

"The proprietor can choose to assert design right in the whole or any part of his product. If the right is said to reside in the design of a teapot, this can mean that it resides in the design of the whole pot or in a part of the pot such as the spout, the handle or the lid, or indeed part of the lid. This means that the proprietor can trim his design right claim to most closely match what he believes the defendant to have taken. The defendant will not know in what the alleged monopoly resides until the letter before action or, more usually, the service of the statement of claim. This means that the plaintiff's pleading has particular importance. It not only puts forward the claim but is likely to be the only statement of what is asserted to be the design right."

Mr. Englehart dissected each of the designs finding that some features of each design were excluded by the "must fit", "commonplace" or other exception and others were not. Taking the features that were not excluded he looked at the defendant's case to see whether or not that feature was present. On finding that it was, and in the absence of a reasonable explanation from the defendant, he held that there had been copying. He made no qualitative analysis of the functional or other value of the allegedly reproduced feature.

It is submitted that the approach of Rattee J is to be preferred as it is closer to the policy of the Act. Upon closer analysis, Laddie J's judgment in Ocular Sciences does not actually conflict with that of Rattee J. The above dicta appear early in the portion of the judgment on the design right issue and rightly stress the importance of precise identification of the integers of the claim. It is obvious from his comprehensive if concise summary of the technical evidence on pages 423 and 424 that Laddie J had in mind the functional importance of the features alleged to have been copied. However, he did not need to discuss it in his judgment because the plaintiffs had failed to prove that their individual lens designs were copied into the defendants'. Any other approach would lead to absurdity and injustice as it is usually possible to find some common features in any two competing products if one looks closely enough. Many of those similarities will be knocked out by the "commonplace", "must fit", "must match" or "commonplace" exceptions but it is possible to envisage some that might not. It is difficult to believe that it was Parliament's intention that a manufacturer should deprive consumers of a competing product merely because his competitor copied a trivial detail. The old law would have dealt with the problem by regarding such copying as insubstantial and it is inconceivable that the current law does not do likewise.

First published in the Northern Intellectual Property Review in June 1997. Also in IP/IT Update 

Trade Marks: No Names, No Pack Drill but here is a Success Story that shows how the Panel works.

Last Friday lunch time my manager received an urgent phone call from a gentleman who had attended my Bradford IP clinic and an IP awareness talk at the Bradford Chamber of Commerce.    He had applied to register his own UK trade mark and the application had been published in June.   The deadline for opposition was this Monday.  Just before 13:00 he had received a letter from a London trade mark attorney in the following terms:

"We act on behalf of AB SA. of Spain. Our client is the proprietor of Community Trade Mark Registrations Nos. .................. and ............. copies of which are enclosed.

Our client has noticed your UK trade mark application, above, for the mark XYZ in respect of “Clothing and clothing accessories” in class 25 and “Retail services connected with the sale of foodstuffs and beverages” in class 35. As you can see, our client’s registrations cover a mark – SYZ – which will be pronounced identically to yours and which is registered for identical or similar goods in classes 25 and 35. This gives our client a good basis to object to your application.

Our client therefore requests that you limit your UK application to exclude classes 25 and 35. Failing that, our client will have to file Opposition by the deadline of 6 September 2008, i.e. Monday. Please note that if an Opposition is successful then costs are awarded by the Registry on a standard scale.

We hope that it will be possible to resolve this without resorting to Opposition, and look forward to hearing from you."

On returning from lunch I called the client immediately and looked through the papers.   I formed the view that there was insufficient similarity between the Community trade mark and my client's mark. In a brief email I advised him of the provisions of s.5 (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and that there was no need to withdraw the application.   I added:

"Now I could draft a letter for you to send back to [the trade mark attorneys] to that effect but I think you should instruct a patent or trade mark agent to send it on your behalf.    The reason I say that is that trade mark oppositions can beocme quite difficult and [the trade mark attorneys] may be encouraged to push their luck with you if they think you are unrepresented.   Many unrepresented parties make mistakes in such proceedings. Consequently patent agents often persist with weak cases in the hope that the other side will make an error."

I introduced my client to all 4 patent and trade mark agents on the NIPC panel (3 of whom are from Yorkshire and one, Barbara Cookson, from London) adding

"Although all 4 agents are probably equally good, Barbara has the advantage of being in London which means that she will be within walking distance of the UK-IPO if she has to attend a hearing whereas the others would have to travel from Yorkshire and would charge you for their time and expenses."

Brabara was on the train from Yorkshire when I called her and she responded immediately.   She contacted the other side first thing on Monday morning and offered them a deal that limited the application in respect of the one class of goods that was important to them but of no immediate importance to us.   There was a delay in the other side's obtaining instructions so an opposition was filed but I am glad to say that the deal was settled.

The client was delighted: "It is great news", he said in an email Barbara adding "thank you for being so wonderful in handling this opposition so well. Your email..... was well constructed and firm and they must have seen no grounds of opposition after they read that.  In a PS to me he said "Thank you Jane for placing me in exceptionally capable hands with Barbara."   Well, that's how the NIPC IP Yorkshire Panel works, folks.

PS Barbara and I have just had some really nice commendatory emails, see "Trade Marks: A Very Satisfied Client".

How the Panel Works: An Interesting Comment from Barbara Cookson

Last Thursday I convened a meeting of the NIPC panellists in Bradford for a CPD event. I also took the opportunity to explain how the network of inventors clubs, IP clinics, IP practitioners staff college and all my other initiatives work and hand together.    One of my guests was Barabara Cookson of Filemot Technology Law who contributed the very next day a very interesting post to the Solo Indeopendent IP Practitioners Group blog entitled An Alternative Business Model based on Quality which explains my concept beautifully.

The Solo Independent IP Practitioners Group, incidentally, is a group of IP sole practitioners and partners of small firms. It developed from a meeting of patent counsel, specialist solicitors, patent and trade mark attorneys, law publishers and other professionals at a pub in London on 15 February 2006 who had been brought together by Prof. Jeremy Phillips.   It was all very jolly.   After a very short speech by Jeremy and some serious advice on practice building from Margaret Briffa we agreed to meet regularly.   There was in fact a meeting at Olswang's yesterday with Stuart Greenhill, a marketing executive from Lexis Nexis, Unfortunately, I missed it but I hope to catch up with Barbara later today to let you know how the group got on.

Leeds Inventors Club, 17 Sep 2008 18:00 - 20:00

The speaker at next week's meeting of the Leeds Inventors Club will be Gareth Morgan of GAP Management in Barnsley. Gareth was our guest at the Sheffield club on 1 Sep and he spoke really well.

The club meets every third Wednesday except for August and December at Central Library, Calverley Street, Leeds, LS1 3AB. There is no subscription and meetings are free.

Between 15:00 and 17:00 on that same day I shall run a free IP clinic for members at NTI

Old Broadcasting House

Woodhouse Lane
Leeds
LS2 9PN.

I shall have room for 4 slots of 30 minutes each.   If you want to book an appointment to see me please call 0845 122 1555 for an appointment.

IP Law Foundation Course: Bradford 2 Oct 2008, 14:00 - 17:00

This half-day course is intended primarily for solicitors with general, commercial, civil or commercial litigation practices who do not regard themselves as IP specialists but who nevertheless find themselves advising start-ups and other small businesses on how best to protect their investment in brands, design, technology and the creative works. 

However, it should also be useful to practitioners who intend to specialize in IP and technology law but who have not yet done much IP or technology work. And even for experts it would be useful revision. We have aimed to make that course the best introduction to IP law on the market and priced at £25 + VAT we do not believe that anyone could offer better value except perhaps as a loss leader.

What will the Course Cover?

Essentially everything that can conveniently be fitted into 3 hours allowing for breaks and discussion. The course will be divided into 3 sessions:

• an overview on IP covering terminology, mine and  various other people's definitions of IP, legislative and judicial policy, the IP system (TRIPS, the treaties, WIPO and institutions), sources of law, legislation, national and regional IP offices and the courts;
• obtaining intellectual property rights and exploiting them: contrasting IPR that arise automatically such as copyrights and design rights with registrable rights such as patents, trade marks and designs, the patent, trade mark and design registration processes, the cost of patenting and its advantages and disadvantages compared to trade secrets and design rights and the need for IP insurance, licensing and joint ventures and top tips for clients; and
• enforcing IP rights: how IPR are infringed, the methods of enforcement, remedies, CPR Part 63, PD63 and the Patents Court Guide, threats actions, costs of litigation and methods of funding and alternatives to litigation such as the UDRP for domain names and advisory opinions on validity and infringement from the UK-IPO.

There will of course be tea and comfort breaks and time for questions and discussion.

What about Handouts?

This is where we score over the competition. We don't just give delegates copies of the PowerPoint slides. Every delegate receives a 22 page resource pack containing the following materials:

• a table showing how each type of intellectual asset (i.e. brands, design, inventions etc)  is protected in the UK and elsewhere;
• extracts from relevant statutes and cases on subsistence and infirngement of IP rights;
• a table of UK, European and international institutions governing particular types of IP right;
• a table showing relative costs of enforcement in the UK and other industrial countries
• a discussion on the Protocol on Interpretation of Art 69 of the European Convention and the changes brought about by the insertion of a new art 2;
• comparisons with the US doctrine of equivalents;
• extracts from The Code of Practice for pre-action conduct in intellectual property dispute
• s.74A and s.74B of the Patents Act 1977, and 
• overview of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

In addition there will be a 4 page glossary covering everything from the Berne Convention to the WTO Agreement and a lost of Internet addresses for the main treaties, directives, statutes, practice directions and other materials such as the Code of Practice to the Chancery and Patent Court guides..

To facilitate comprehension there will be plenty of questions for discussion such as

"If a client came to you with a domain name dispute, in what circumstances would you advise him not to use the UDRP or similar scheme"

and

"Would you always advise a start-up to apply for a patent and if so why?"

Who will present the Course?

I will. Many of you are aware already that I know my stuff because you have instructed me. Those of you who don't know me, 

• take a look at my profile above 
• look around my website, 
• read my articles on the IP/IT Update blog and website, in print and elsewhere; 
• look up my reported cases in the Fleet Street and other reports and on the Internet; and
• my decisions as a domain name panellist on the WIPO website.

Gower Ashgate are about to publish my practical guide on enforcing IPR for small businesses and creative and innovative individuals.

How will this Course benefit me?

A half-day course will not make you into an IP expert but it will give you a really good start. It should be a lot easier to understand the text books, statutes and cases when you have to look up the law in a hurry. You should be able to appreciate correspondence from patent agents and solicitors on the other side a lot better. You will be able to instruct specialist counsel more effectively and make better use of their advice.   It will qualify you for slightly more advanced courses such as our intriductions to patents, copyrights, trade mark and design registration which we shall present later in the year as well as advanced courses on licensing, IP litigation and other topics.   All of these courses function as building blocks for a qualification which we shall ask a university to accredit.

CPD Accreditation

We have applied to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for accreditation of this course and should receive our assessment by 19 September 2008. If all goes well I should be able to award 2 1/2 hours points.   As a practising barrister I can also award CPD points for counsel.

Venue

The course will take place at Gumption's boardroom which you can see in the picture above. You will find Gumption at

Glydegate

Bradford

BD5 0BQ

Telephone 01274 299300

It is almost opposite Bradford ice rink and about 100 yards from the National Media Museum. There are inexpensive pay and display car parks at Wilton Street and behind the National Media Museum. If you arrive by bus or rail, Gumption is a short walk form Bradford Interchange bus and railway station.

How to Book

As you can see from the photo above, space is limited to 14 including me so if you want to book you had better book early.   You can apply for a place right now by filling out the electronic form below.    Alternatively, you can print out the form below and post it to together with your cheque for £29.38 payable to NIPC Ltd. for the attention of Ms. Toni Wilson.

NIPC Ltd

The Media Centre

7 Northumberland Street

Huddersfield

HD1 1RL

Tel 0870 990 5081

..........................................................................................

IP Foundation Course

Gumption Centres Brandford

2 Oct 2008, 14:00 - 17:00

Please reserve me a place on the above course. I enclose my cheque for £29.38 payable to NIPC Ltd.

Name of Delegate: .........................................................................................

Position: .......................................................

Firm/Company/Other Organization: ...........................................................

Postal Address: ..........................................................................

............................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................

Postal Code .................................................... 

Country (if not UK) .........................................

Tel .......................................................................   

Fax  ......................................................................

Email ....................................................................    

Website ................................................................

Signed ..................................................................    

Date ...............................................