header-logo header-logo

25 April 2013
Issue: 7557 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Rights bullies stifle competition

Law Commission consults on competition law reform

Competition law could form part of reforms to help protect businesses from “bully boy tactics” by rivals who chase their customers away with groundless patent and trade mark infringement threats.

The current law of groundless threats of infringement stems from the 19th century and was introduced to resolve disputes about steam engines. In a consultation launched this week, the Law Commission argues that reforms are now needed if the law is to cope with global battles over information technology.

The Commission proposes to:
 

  • adapt the 2004 patent law reforms and extend them to trade marks and design rights;
  • clarify at what stage, and under what circumstances, a rights holder can approach a competitor, their distributor or customers, about a potential infringement;
  • protect legal advisers from liability for groundless threats; and
  • treat groundless threats as a form of unfair competition and introduce a new cause of action based on the Paris Convention.

David Hertzell, the Law Commissioner leading the project, said: “When retailers receive letters saying that a product infringes a patent, many just drop the product.

“If the product does infringe, that is fair enough. But where the allegation is groundless, it is important to provide the supplier with a remedy. Otherwise it is too easy for a rival to gain an unfair advantage through bully boy tactics.

“Patents, trade marks and design rights are vital to the UK economy. But they must not be misused to stifle competition.”

The consultation, Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats, closes on 17 July 2013.

Issue: 7557 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll