Infringement Definition

See All Glossary Terms

Published by a ��˾��ҹ�� Commercial expert

What does Infringement mean?

A copyright work is infringed when anyone other than its owner or licensor performs or authorises the performance of one of the 'restricted acts' set out in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 without permission, such as copying, issuing copies to the public, renting or lending to the public, performing or playing in public, communicating to the public or making an adaptation. Infringement does not need to involve the complete work; any use of a 'substantial part' will suffice.

Commercial

View the related checklists about Infringement

Contractual considerations for the procurement of artificial intelligence—checklist

Contractual considerations for the procurement of artificial intelligence—checklist This Checklist highlights the key procurement, licensing and contractual issues relevant to artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) solutions. Depending on the specific application, the inclusion of AI may mean adding simple automated functionality, through to creating a complex, intelligent tool controlled by either a third party or by the customer. This Checklist assumes that the AI will be capable of an element of learning and that, as such, one or both of the parties will be involved in training it. For a discussion of methodologies for the management of risks and challenges that might arise during the deployment of AI technology, see News Analysis: Understanding and managing the risks in artificial intelligence (AI) technology projects. General issues related to software development and licensing, systems integration, outsourcing and software support services may also be relevant, depending on the solution, but are not highlighted in this Checklist. For more, see Practice Notes: • Key issues in software licence agreements • Software development...

Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)—timeline [Archived]

Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)—timeline [Archived] Archived:This timeline has been archived. For developments from January 2024 onwards, see EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive—timeline if they relate to the EU BRRD, or UK bank recovery and resolution regime—timeline if they relate to the UK bank recovery and resolution regime, For further guidance on the EU BRRD, see Practice Note: Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)—essentials. For further guidance on the UK bank recovery and resolution regime, see Practice Note: The UK bank recovery and resolution regime. Date Source Document Description 20 December 2023 European Banking Authority The EBA publishes amendments to disclosures and reporting on MREL and TLAC The European Banking Authority (EBA) has published its final draft implementing technical standards (ITS) on amendments to disclosure and reporting of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) and the total loss absorbency requirement (TLAC). The amendments reflect the new requirement to deduct investments in eligible liabilities instruments of entities belonging to the same resolution group, the...

UK design infringement action—flowchart

UK design infringement action—flowchart This Flowchart provides an overview of a UK design infringement action. The specific right relied on could be one of the following design rights which coexist in the UK: • UK registered designs (including re-registered designs) • UK unregistered designs (sometimes referred to as ‘design right’) • supplementary unregistered designs For more information about these rights, see Practice Note: UK registered and unregistered designs. Stage 1—preparing to bring a claim and pre-action matters Claim preparation and pre-action matters—Practice Notes • Infringement of UK registered and unregistered designs • Design disputes—a practical guide • How to run an IP dispute • Copyright in designs • Types of dispute resolution • IP and mediation • IP and arbitration • UK Intellectual Property Office—mediation scheme • Disclosure scheme—when and where it applies Claim preparation and pre-action matters—Precedent • Disclosure Scheme timetable—checklist Claim preparation and pre-action matters—Forms • Application for injunction • Application notice • Notice of hearing of application Stage 2—Letter before action alleging infringement Letter before...

Passing off—flowchart

Passing off—flowchart Passing off action Passing off is a common law action that is used to protect unregistered trade mark rights in the UK. The stages of the Flowchart cover establishing a claim for passing off covering: • the three essential elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage • sending a letter of claim, issuing proceedings and applying for an injunction • commencing proceedings in the general Intellectual Property List or the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court sub-list in the Business and Property Court, in the Chancery Division at the High Court • case management including allocation, the case management conference and directions • disclosure and evidence including inspection, additional disclosure and survey evidence • trial preparation and post-trial activities such as election between damages or an account of profits • applications to appeal Stage 1—preparing to bring a claim and pre-action matters Claim preparation and pre-action matters—Practice Notes • Passing off—goodwill, misrepresentation and damage • Trade mark and passing off disputes—a practical guide • How to run an IP dispute...

Copyright infringement

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) gives the copyright owner exclusive rights in the UK to carry out various acts in relation to the copyright work. Activities set out in CDPA 1988 carried out by those other than the copyright owner, without permission, may infringe the owner's exclusive rights.IP completion dayAs of 31 January 2020, the UK ceased to be an EU Member State. In accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK entered a transition or implementation period of 11 months ending on 31 December 2020, during which it continued to be subject to EU law. Following the expiry of the transition period the UK is no longer subject to EU law. Although the UK is no longer subject to EU law, under the Withdrawal Agreement it is subject to so-called ‘retained EU law’ which captures EU-derived rights and legislation that the government has retained and preserved in UK law for legal continuity.Further, under the Withdrawal Agreement, any principles laid down by, and any decisions of, the...

UK and Community design right threats—pre 1 October 2017 [Archived]

UK and Community design right threats—pre 1 October 2017 [Archived] As of exit day (31 January 2020) the UK is no longer an EU Member State. However, in accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK has entered an implementation period, during which it continues to be subject to EU law. This has an impact on this Practice Note. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit—IP rights. ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note sets out the law of unjustified threats of UK and Community design right infringement prior to its amendment by the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 (IP(UT)A 2017). Communications made prior to 1 October 2017 continue to be governed by the old regime in respect of patents, trade marks and designs, as appropriate. All references in this Practice Note to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the Registered Designs Act 1949, and the Community Design Regulations 2005, are references to the legislation as it...

Discover our 1754 Practice Notes on Infringement

Indemnity clause—infringement of third party IP rights (consultant appointment)

Indemnity

Online brand protection—training materials

Online brand protection—training materials These training materials are template PowerPoint slides which show how businesses can protect their online brands. They include guidance upon protecting trade marks and domain names. It is intended that these slides will be used as a starting point for someone who needs to train others on brand protection. These slides can be amended as necessary to suit individual requirements, but will help the speaker by speeding up preparation times. The training materials are customisable. Click the link below to download the presentation. Contents • Terminology • The internet and key brand risks • Deciding on new branding • Managing an existing brand • Trade mark infringement and passing off actions: — Trade mark infringement — Passing off — Domain names — Keyword advertising — Objecting to other trade marks • Advertising practices • Defamation • Responding to a brand management crisis • Conclusion Purpose of slides/seminar The slides are intended for a general rather than specialist audience. It is anticipated...

Dive into our 272 Precedents related to Infringement

For service out of jurisdiction for a patent infringement claim to an entity in France, do the patents (including GB and EP patents) that the claimant wishes to enforce need to be translated into French?

For service out of jurisdiction for a patent infringement claim to an entity in France, do the patents (including GB and EP patents) that the claimant wishes to enforce need to be translated into French? If you are serving proceedings issued in England out of the jurisdiction and the entity to be served is a company registered in the Republic of France then, presumably, the intended defendant is going to be accused of having committed an act of infringement in England. You may then issue proceedings in England and serve them abroad. There are two ways of serving documents abroad. The first way is to do it yourself, by post, or hand delivering the proceedings to the intended defendant. This does not require any documents to be translated. The second way is to use an official service channel (usually the local British embassy) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial...

What are IP rights?

What are IP rights? Basic concept Most people are familiar enough with the idea that owning tangible property, such as a car or some land, carries with it some rights, such as not to have it stolen or damaged. So that people are incentivised to create things or new ways of doing something, the law provides rights to creators. These rights are to property, generated by someone's creativity, and they are similar to rights in property such as land—they can be sold, rented out or even mortgaged, and they cannot be trespassed on without the owner's consent. The owner has a right to keep other people away from exploiting this intellectual property (IP), for example stopping them selling the products containing the ideas protected by the IP. There are limits to that right to keep people away, because the intention is that the owner's exclusive rights should not extend so far that competition and free markets are stifled. Creative output could be viewed as a spectrum of activities,...

See the 178 Q&As about Infringement

The rise of dupe culture—the challenges for brand owners

IP analysis: Dupe culture is reshaping consumer behaviour, creating both challenges and opportunities for brands. By embracing innovation and engaging with consumers, brands can leverage this trend to strengthen their market position. In the face of growing demand for alternatives, the key lies in demonstrating why genuine products are worth the investment, whether through superior quality, ethical practices, or unmatched durability. Forward-thinking brands that adapt to this evolving landscape will not only withstand the rise of dupes but can thrive because of it. Written by Mark Kramer, partner, and Autumn Gibson, associate, at Potter Clarkson.

Commercial weekly highlights—19 December 2024

This week's edition of Commercial weekly highlights includes: analysis of the decision in Grain Communications v Shepherd Groundworks which considered whether an employer’s decision to postpone works was a valid exercise of its right to instruct variations or a breach of contract, announcement of the publication of the decision in Sea Consortium PTE Ltd (trading as X-Press Feeders) v Bengal Tiger Line PTE Ltd which considered whether slot charterers fell within the definition of ‘charterer’ in Article 1(2) of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, and news that the Advertising Standards Authority has published its latest rulings.

Read the latest 3685 News articles on Infringement

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Case studies

"I would say that the amount of time I take to draft a good, comprehensive submission has been cut down by at least 60 to 70%. Having all these sources, commentary and journals at my fingertips is brilliant."

ParrisWhittaker

Access all documents on Infringement

GET ACCESS NOW

Top

Trial

��˾��ҹ��

GLOSSARY