Commercial Publications

The principle of ‘no reflective loss’ following the decision of the Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial: an analysis by Marc Brittain and Mariya Peykova.

Cheryl Jones writes about wrongful trading and provides an update on what's changing in the light of the current COVID-19 pandemic.

The protection of shapes in 2020: Trade Marks, Copyright & IPR Cumulation - Victoria Jones considers the following cases:

On trade marks
- Freixenet SA v OHIM C-344/10 and C-345/10 [2011] ECR I-10205 on Inherent Distinctiveness
- Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions v Boots C-108/97 and C-109/97 on Acquired distinctiveness
- The London Taxi Corporation Ltd v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd & Anr [2017] EWCA Civ 1729
- Jaguar Land Rover Limited v Ineos Industries Holdings Limited [2020] EWHC 2130 (Ch)
- Gömböc: C-237/19

On copyright
- Cofemel v G-Star Raw CV C-683/17
- Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech/Get2Get C-833/18
- Response Clothing v Edinburgh Woollen Mill Limited [2020] EWHC 148 (IPEC)

Trade marks and the drinks industry

Nicole Bollard reviews a selection of recent trade mark decisions concerning the drinks industry, including:
- Sazerac Brands LLC and others v Liverpool Gin Distillery Limited and others [2020] EWHC 2424
- Les Grands Chais de France SAS v Consorzio di Tutela Della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco
- Gleann Mor Spirits Company Limited v Muckle Brig Limited (O/366/20).

3PB's specialist commercial law barrister Neil Fawcett reviews The Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance
(UK) Ltd. and ors [2020] EWHC 2448 (Comm) (“the Test Case”) and outlines what this means for other businesses with business interruption insurance.

3PB Commercial Barrister Marc Brittain and Pupil Barrister Mariya Peykova consider the conditions under which employers in the construction industry should have to pay a levy for the purpose of meeting the expenses of an industrial training board.

The power of the Construction Industry and Training Board to impose levies under the Industrial Training Act 1982

3PB Commercial Barrister Marc Brittain and Pupil Barrister Mariya Peykova consider the conditions under which employers in the construction industry should have to pay a levy for the purpose of meeting the expenses of an industrial training board.

In this article written for the British Tax Review, Max Schofield reviews News Corp UK & Ireland Ltd v HMRC and whether digital versions of newspapers should attract VAT, while printed versions do not.

Max Schofield analyses Landlinx Estates Ltd v HMRC, in which an option agreement over land was broken when the seller backed out and paid the would-be buyer £1.4m. HMRC wanted a slice of the action as VAT on the deal.

Dealing with Competing Jurisdiction Clauses: What is your Centre of Gravity?
Marc Brittain and Mariya Peykova consider complex commercial arrangements and the difficulties they can create for parties where their obligations are set out in a multitude of related contracts of a single contract containing inconsistent dispute resolution clauses. Marc and Mariya explore the most common scenarios in which courts are asked to interpret inconsistent dispute resolution clauses, with particular focus on the ‘centre of gravity’ approach, adopted by courts.

No duty to exercise option reasonably or in good faith in engine maintenance agreement

Rebecca Farrell analyses Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd v Lufthansa Technik AG, in which the High Court found that there was no duty of good faith or duty to act reasonably in respect of an option to withdraw engines from a maintenance agreement.

This article was first published by Lexis®PSL on 21 July 2020.

Following the introduction of the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Act 2020 (“the CIGA 2020”) and the associated Insolvency Practice Direction, 3PB’s specialist commercial law barristers Charles Irvine and Rebecca Farrell consider winding up petitions in this context.