Friday 27 September 2024

M-SParc Returns to London

(c) 2024 Jane Elizabeth Lambert all rights reserved
Gareth the Orangutan at the London Welsh Centre 25 Sep

 












Jane Lambert

During last year's Indian summer, representatives of the Menai Science Park ("M-SParc") held a series of events at the House of Lords,  the London Welsh School and the Welsh Government's London offices in Victoria.  I attended two of those events and discussed them in Reflections on Wales Innovation Week in LondonYesterday and the day before the M-SParc team returned to London to promote opportunities, investment, entrepreneurship and innovation in Wales (see M-SParc #ArYLonDon on the M-SParc website).

This year they held a reception at the London Welsh Centre on 25 Sept 2024 and continued the next day with STEM workshops at the London Welsh School and a pitching event organized by Global Welsh in Whitechapel at which M-SParc was a sponsor.  As soon as I finished my talk on intellectual property for the Convergent Content Scaler I took a train to London which arrived just in time for the reception at the London Welsh Centre.

Someone at M-SParc took or made arrangements for a video to be taken of the event and posted it to Linkedin.  The event took place in the first-floor bar of the Centre.  I was shown the dancing robot and invited to try my luck at one of the video games.  I also circulated and introduced myself to some of the speakers and other guests.

Sometime after 18:30, Pryderi ap Rhisiart, M-SParc's Managing Director, introduced himself to the audience.  He said a few words about the science park, the trip to London and the programme for the evening,  He then introduced Hywel Pitts, a superabundantly talented singer I would never have discovered had I not started to study Welsh.  

He had the audience in fits of laughter.  Sadly most of his jokes and allusions passed over my head because I could not keep pace with the lyrics or patter. While my Welsh is a little bit more than "tipyn bach" it is a long way short of "yn rhugl."  Simultaneous translation was available but I try not to use it when learning a language. It is usually possible to pick up the gist of a conversation and attune the ear but relying on an interpreter teaches nothing.  Happily, there is a song about Brexit recorded on YouTube that Hywel sang with another popular singer known as "the Welsh Whisperer."  The lyrics of that song are so obvious that anyone can follow that song sufficiently to appreciate both artists' wits.  

After the singing, Pryderi introduced a panel of speakers:

He had several questions on folded post-it notes that had been placed in a tricorne hat.  He invited each of the quests to pick one from the hat, read it to the audience and discuss it.  Some of the interviews were in Welsh where, again, I picked up the gist but not the detail.

After a short break, we met the star of the evening, Gareth yr Orangutan.  I have been a fan of Gareth's for years - long before he joined M-SParc.  I first encountered him during lockdown when I spent the fortnight that I had intended to spend in St Davids listening to "Say Something in Welsh" recordings.  I think I learnt more Welsh from those videos than ever I did from the courses at Nant Gwrtheyrn, Popeth Cymraeg and the London Welsh Centre.  Gareth speaks the Welsh of everyday conversation which is a lot less structured than the classroom version.  My favourite videos are his work experience in the chip shop and his Christmas show with the ghost of Christmas past, the Welsh whisperer and Sion Corn.  Gareth interviewed some of the guests in his inimitable style.

The evening was in full swing when I was horrified to see that I had just 35 minutes to dash to King's Cross to catch the last train back to Donny.   Since buses are as frequent as the Preston Guild and taxis are as rare as hens' teeth I had to run.  I did not have time to say goodbye to Gareth or the rest of the team from M-SParc.  I had been hoping to meet Hywel Pitts and Llinos Medi MP but that will have to be another occasion.   

I boarded my train with minutes to spare, picked up my car at the station car park and arrived him just after 02:00. It had been a very long day but a very pleasant one.

Thursday 26 September 2024

The Welsh Science Parks' Convergent Content Scaler Programme

 

Jane Lambert

The Menai Science Park ("M-SParc") has been running a very successful accelerator programme for startups for several years.   In Two Kinds of Accelerators - Colin Jackson in a Race and Accelerators for StartupsI described accelerator programmes as "fixed-term, cohort-based programmes, that include mentorship and educational components and culminate in a public pitch event or demo day. Another way of describing an accelerator is as a cross between The Apprentice and Dragons' Den. Your idea is pinched, pulled and prodded tested to destruction but if it survives you will receive training, mentoring and ultimately funding." I discussed M-SParc's accelerator programme on 15 Feb 2022 and the Accelerator's Showcase on 22 June 2022.

Startups cannot remain startups forever and as I noted in IP Strategy to Scale-Up on 19 Oct 2021 the transition from startup to scaleup is often described as a chasm.   I explained in that article

"That is because most scale-ups are very different from start-ups in terms of governance, marketing and funding. One obvious difference is that start-ups can be funded by their founders themselves, possibly with the support of friends and family and maybe some grants or soft loans whereas scale-ups usually need investment from third parties such as angels, venture capitalists and in a few rare cases the AIM."

Such investors will expect safeguards for their investments and the bundle of laws that protect investment in innovation, branding and creativity is known collectively as "intellectual property."   It was for that reason that Tom Burke invited me to give a talk on "Safeguarding Investment in Convergent Content" to the Convergent Content Scaler between 10:00 and 12:00 on 25 Sept 2024.

The Convergent Content Scaler is a collaboration between M-SParc on Ynys Môn and Tramshed Tech in South Wales.   It is a 12-week programme in which participants will receive tailored support to help scale up and expand on creative tech projects as well as gain access to further funding, resources and coaching. I attended the launch at M-SParc and online on 12 Sept 2024 between 09:00 and 11:00.

My talk was received very generously by the audience. Klaire Tanner one of the attendees wrote:

"Completely forgot to tell you that I’ve been accepted onto the Convergent Content Scaler Programme, run by Tramshed Tech and M-SParc 🚀

Had a fantastic time this morning on the programme, Jane Lambert did a really insightful session on IP!"

She also posted some lovely photos of the smiling faces of the M-SParc attendees in the park's Collaboration Room.   Tom wrote:  "Was a fantastic session! Diolch yn fawr Jane Lambert."  I replied that it is always a pleasure to work with Tom and that Klaire had delivered a splendid talk on AI from which I had learnt a lot in the same room earlier this year.  For the convenience of those who attended my talk and anyone else who may be interested I have uploaded my slides to Slideshare,

After the talk, I discussed some of the IP issues of some of the members of the audience.  There was insufficient time to address everyone's issue and I invited the attendees to book appointments on our "Initial Advice and Signposting" clinic by filling in the form below.  Anybody wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during normal office hours or send me a message through my contact page.

Tuesday 17 September 2024

Re Gary Atkinson's Trade Mark - Owen v Atkinson


 













Jane Lambert

Trade Marks Registry (Judi PikeRe Atkinson's Trade Mark, Huw Richard Owen v Gary Atkinson  BL O/1202/23 20 Dec 2023

This was an application to the Registrar of Trade Marks by Huw Richard Owen ("Mr Owen") for a declaration that UK trade mark number 3687974 which Gary Atkinson ("Mr Atkinson") had registered for a range of goods in classes 1, 7, 11, 19, 21, 31 and 37 was invalid under s.47 (1) and/or (2) (b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.  Mr Owen alleged that the mark had been registered in bad faith within the meaning of s.3 (6) and that he had an "earlier right" in relation to which the condition set out in s.5 (4) had been satisfied. 

S.5 (4) (a) provides:

"A trade mark shall not be registered if, or to the extent that, its use in the United Kingdom is liable to be prevented—
(a)    by virtue of any rule of law (in particular, the law of passing off) protecting an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade, where the condition in subsection (4A) is met."

Mr Owen claimed the right to bring an action for passing off to restrain Mr Atkinson's use of trade mark number UK3687974 on the ground that he had run a licensed pet shop on the island called "Anglesey Aquatics" or "Mon Aquatics" since January 2017.  He also claimed that Mr Atkinson's registration and use of that mark amounted to bad faith.  Mr Atkinson denied Mr Owen's allegations and requested sight of the evidence upon which Mr Owen relied.

Neither party was legally represented and the invalidity proceedings came on before Judi Pike ("Ms Pike") acting on behalf of the Registrar.  As neither side had requested a hearing, Ms Pike determined the application on written submissions and evidence.  She delivered her decision on 20 Dec 2023 (see Re Atkinson's Trade Mark, Owen v Atkinson BL O/1202/23 20 Dec 2023).

After referring to s.5 and s.47 of the Act Ms Pike cited paras [55] and [56] of Judge Melissa Clarke's judgment in Jadebay Ltd and others v Clarke-Coles Ltd (t/a Feel Good UK) [2017] EWHC 1400 (IPEC) (13 June 2017):

“[55]. The elements necessary to reach a finding of passing off are the ‘classical trinity' of that tort as described by Lord Oliver in the Jif Lemon case (Reckitt & Colman Product v Borden [1990] 1 WLR 491 HL, [1990] RPC 341, HL), namely goodwill or reputation; misrepresentation leading to deception or a likelihood of deception; and damage resulting from the misrepresentation. The burden is on the Claimants to satisfy me of all three limbs. 

[56] In relation to deception, the court must assess whether "a substantial number" of the Claimants' customers or potential customers are deceived, but it is not necessary to show that all or even most of them are deceived (per Interflora Inc v Marks and Spencer Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 1501, [2013] FSR 21).”

She also mentioned Lord MacNaghten's speech in Inland Revenue Commissioners v Muller & Co’s Margarine Ltd [1901] AC 217 at 223:  

“What is goodwill? It is a thing very easy to describe, very difficult to define. It is the benefit and advantage of the good name, reputation and connection of a business. It is the attractive force which brings in custom. It is the one thing which distinguishes an old-established business from a new business at its first start."

As Mr Atkinson had applied for his trade mark on 31 Aug 2021, Ms Pike held at para [12] of her decision that Mr Owen must show that at that date he had sufficient goodwill in his business to bring an action for passing off.  

Mr Owen made a witness statement stating that he had traded as Anglesey Aquatics and Môn Aquatics from when he opened his business in 2017. One of the exhibits is a licence under The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities involving Animals (Wales) Regulations 2021 covering the period from 25 March 2022 to 24 March 2024 identifying his business as Môn/Anglesey Aquatics trading from an address on the island,.  He also exhibited a business card, screen prints of a Facebook page, a web page, a social media comment page and an address label.   A screenshot showed that Mr Owen owned the domain name <monangleseyaquatics.co.uk> but it was not clear when if at all he had ever used it.  Ms Pike observed at para [19] that mere ownership of a domain name does not prove that the name is in use or has contributed to the accrual of goodwill.

None of these exhibits were dated and the hearing officer expressed Mr Owen's first difficulty in para [20]:

"The assessment as to whether Mr Owen owned sufficient goodwill at the relevant date of 31 August 2021 is tied to goodwill accrued prior to that date. This makes it very important that exhibits are dated or, if undated, other evidence corroborates them and make it possible to place their significance as generating custom prior to the relevant date. It is also very important that the evidence which is dated shows that use which generated custom took place before the relevant date. I have already referred to the lack of dating in respect of the delivery label and the social media and website screenshots. Exhibits MA35, MA36 and MA37 are photographs of shelves stocked with aquatic goods (such as decorative rocks and fish food). They are undated and Mr Owen refers to them in the present tense: “I have a number of accounts open with a number of these [trade accounts with suppliers, distributors and wholesalers], which entitles my business to buy and sell all goods associated within the aquatic trade as in pictures Exhibit MA35, Exhibit MA36 and Exhibit MA37…”

She added at [23]:

"What Mr Owen must show in evidence is that, by 31 August 2021, he owned a protectable goodwill in the signs relied upon, sufficient to have prevented the use of the contested mark under the law of passing off. He states that he has been using Mon Aquatics/Anglesey Aquatics since January 2017, but the evidence falls a long way short of demonstrating the relevant goodwill in either or both names. I cannot tell from the evidence how much turnover was achieved prior to the relevant date as there are no such figures and no dated invoices. There are no dated website or social media screenshots. Owning an unused domain name does not show goodwill. Goodwill is the attractive force which brings in custom, but there is no evidence to show when that custom was generated, and how much custom was generated. The only dated evidence of trade dates from fourteen months after the relevant date. The pet shop licence is dated after the relevant date. Although there are screenshots of messages from customers who went to Mr Atkinson’s shop instead of Mr Owen’s premises, they are not dated. In the absence of any content which pre-dates the relevant date of 31 October 2021, it is not possible to put these in context."

Another difficulty is that Mr Owen gave no evidence of sales from which the hearing officer could assess the level of goodwill.   Referring to Thomas Mitcheson QC's judgment in Smart Planet Technologies, Inc. v Rajinda Sharma BL O/304/20, 2 June 2020, she said:

"The law protects a small goodwill but not a trivial one; i.e. sales so small that the goodwill is trivial."

Further, "Aquatics" strongly alluded to the type of goods and "Mon/Anglesey" the location of the business.  She had already noted that where a sign is descriptive or weakly distinctive, the evidence needs to be compelling.  At para [28] she quoted Lord Simonds's speech in Office Cleaning Services Limited v Westminster Window & General Cleaners Limited [1946] 63 RPC 39:

“Where a trader adopts words in common use for his trade name, some risk of confusion is inevitable. But that risk must be run unless the first user is allowed unfairly to monopolise the words. The court will accept comparatively small differences as sufficient to avert confusion. A greater degree of discrimination may fairly be expected from the public where a trade name consists wholly or in part of words descriptive of the articles to be sold or the services to be rendered.” 

She concluded at para [29] that Mr Owen's case based on s.47 (2) failed.

Turning to the question of whether Mr Atkinson's application had been made in bad faith, Ms Pike referred to para [67] of Lord Justice Floyd's judgment in Sky Ltd and others v Skykick, UK Ltd and another (Rev2) [2021] RPC 17, [2021] EWCA Civ 1121:

"The following points of relevance to this case can be gleaned from these CJEU authorities:

1. The allegation that a trade mark has been applied for in bad faith is one of the absolute grounds for invalidity of an EU trade mark which can be relied on before the EUIPO or by means of a counterclaim in infringement proceedings: Lindt at [34]. 

2. Bad faith is an autonomous concept of EU trade mark law which must be given a uniform interpretation in the EU: Malaysia Dairy Industries at [29]. 

3. The concept of bad faith presupposes the existence of a dishonest state of mind or intention, but dishonesty is to be understood in the context of trade mark law, i.e. the course of trade and having regard to the objectives of the law namely the establishment and functioning of the internal market, contributing to the system of undistorted competition in the Union, in which each undertaking must, in order to attract and retain customers by the quality of its goods or services, be able to have registered as trade marks signs which enable the consumer, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish those goods or services from others which have a different origin: Lindt at [45]; Koton Mağazacilik at [45]. 

4. The concept of bad faith, so understood, relates to a subjective motivation on the part of the trade mark applicant, namely a dishonest intention or other sinister motive. It involves conduct which departs from accepted standards of ethical behaviour or honest commercial and business practices: Hasbro at [41]. 

5. The date for assessment of bad faith is the time of filing the application: Lindt at [35]. 

6. It is for the party alleging bad faith to prove it: good faith is presumed until the contrary is proved: Pelikan at [21] and [40].

7. Where the court or tribunal finds that the objective circumstances of a particular case raise a rebuttable presumption of lack of good faith, it is for the applicant to provide a plausible explanation of the objectives and commercial logic pursued by the application: Hasbro at [42]. 

8. Whether the applicant was acting in bad faith must be the subject of an overall assessment, taking into account all the factors relevant to the particular case: Lindt at [37]. 

9. For that purpose it is necessary to examine the applicant’s intention at the time the mark was filed, which is a subjective factor which must be determined by reference to the objective circumstances of the particular case: Lindt at [41] – [42].

 10. Even where there exist objective indicia pointing towards bad faith, however, it cannot be excluded that the applicant’s objective was in pursuit of a legitimate objective, such as excluding copyists: Lindt at [49]. 

11. Bad faith can be established even in cases where no third party is specifically targeted, if the applicant’s intention was to obtain the mark for purposes other than those falling within the functions of a trade mark: Koton Mağazacilik at [46]. 

12. It is relevant to consider the extent of the reputation enjoyed by the sign at the time when the application was filed: the extent of that reputation may justify the applicant’s interest in seeking wider legal protection for its sign: Lindt at [51] to [52]. 

13. Bad faith cannot be established solely on the basis of the size of the list of goods and services in the application for registration: Psytech at [88], Pelikan at [54]”.

Citing Red Bull GmbH v Sun Mark Limited and Sea Air & Land Forwarding Limited [2012] EWHC 1929 (Ch) the hearing officer held that it was necessary to ascertain what Mr. Atkinsion knew when he applied for his trade mark.  She observed that an allegation of bad faith is a serious allegation which must be distinctly proved.  She said at [36] that the basis of the bad faith claim was that Mr Atkinson had taken Mr Owen’s Welsh business name which he has been using since 2017. As Ms Pike had found that Mr Owen had not demonstrated in his evidence that he had sufficient goodwill in the name Mon Aquatics (or Anglesey Aquatics) prior to the relevant date of 31 August 2021, the case under s,47 (1) must also fail.

As Mr Owen's application for trade mark UK3687974 to be declared invalid failed, Mr Atkinsin's trade mark remains on the register.   The hearing officer said that Mr Atkinson would have been entitled to costs had he filled in the appropriate form before the hearing.  As he did not do so, Ms Pike made no order for costs.

As I said above, neither party was represented. Time and possibly money might have been saved had either or preferably both of them taken advantage of the pro bono IP Clinic that has operated at the Menai Science  Park since 2018.   This case was just the sort of issue that the clinic was set up to resolve.  Anyone wishing to discuss this case may do so by calling me on 020 7494 5252 during office hours or sending me a message through my contact page.

Tuesday 3 September 2024

New Supervising Judge for the Business and Property Courts in Wales

Author Ham - Licence CC BY-SA 3.0, Source Wikipedia
 

















Mr Justice Michael Green has been appointed as the Supervising Judge of the Business and Property Courts in Wales from 1 Oct 2024 for the next years.  He will also sit as Supervising Judge for the Business and Property Courts of the Midlands and Western Circuits for the same period.

The Business and Property Courts in Wales consist of 3 specialist jurisdictions: 
Those Courts are based in Cardiff but Business and Property Court judges also sit in Mold from time to time and other court centres in Wales as and when required.  Mr Justice Michael Green will be assisted by His Honour Judge Jarman KC, the Chancery judge for Wales, and His Honour Judge Keyser KC, the Circuit Commercial Court Judge for Wales.   Judge Jarman also hears Circuit Commercial and TCC cases and Judge Keyser Chancery and TCC ones.  The Supervising and Specialist Circuit Judges are supported by several specialist district judges.   Profiles of the judges of the Business and Property Courts in Wales can be found on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website.

Although the Regional Business and Property Courts website makes clear that the Patents Court list remains in London, para 16.1 of the Part 63 Practice Direction states that most other intellectual property claims can be issued and tried in Wales. Having said that, para 16.3 of the same Practice Direction warns that the Caernarfon and Mold hearing centres have no jurisdiction in relation to registered trade marks.

The small claims track of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC") hears claims for £10,000 or less falling within para 16.1 of the Part 63 Practice Direction in Cardiff (see IPEC Small Claims Track IP Litigation in Wales of 13 July 2019).  That court cannot award interim injunctions but it can grant final injunctions, delivery up of infringing items and on on.

Although CPR 63.2 (2) requires any claim falling within CPR 63.2 (1) to be brought in the Patents Court or the IPEC, para 4 of the Patents Court Guide provides that If the parties so desire, for the purpose of saving time or costs, the Patents Court will sit out of London.  Para 1.6 of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court Guide contains a similar provision.  To my knowledge, the Patents Court has sat in Manchester and Birmingham and IPEC has also sat in Birmingham but it does not happen very often.

Anyone wishing to discuss this case may call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form at all other times. 

Wednesday 19 June 2024

The Welsh Science Parks' Agri-Tech Cluster

Author Richard Wang Licence Public Domain Source Wikimedia Commons

 











Jane Lambert

On Friday 14 June 2024, I attended "Clwstwr Agritech" a webinar promoted by M-SParc and Aberinnovation, the Menai and Aberystwyth science parks.  At a time when much of the world's food production is threatened by climate change, the development of heat, flood, drought or pest-resistant crops and other food sources has never been more important.  Aberinnovation is literally next door to IBERS, the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences of Aberystwyth University.  M-SParc is a spin-off of Bangor University whose Centre for Applied Marine Sciences is one of the UK's leading research institutions in aquaculture. The attendance of Pryderi ap Rhisiart, Managing Director of M-SParc, and Rhian Hayward MBE, Chief Executive of Aberinnovation, indicated the importance of the occasion.

The webinar consisted of two presentations: one from UKRI on its Mid and North Wales Lauchpad: Cluster Management and the other from Selwyn Owen on Iona Minerals Ltd.  

The Mid and North Wales Launchpad is a £150,000 fund for a project to develop and manage the agri-tech and food technology innovation cluster in those regions.  It is open to UK-based businesses or institutions that will carry out their project work in the UK and which will have an impact on the agri-tech and food technology innovation cluster in Mid and North Wales.  Full details are published on the funding competition web page,  

Iona Minerals is described "as a new and early stage start-up venture, involved in the marketing, distribution of natural minerals".  The company's minerals have a variety of uses one of which is the treatment of chicken droppings in battery farms.  One of the by-products of this process is ammonia which has a number of industrial uses including combustion as a fuel and the preparation of blue hydrogen. 

Although neither speaker discussed the legal protection of the right to exploit new plant or seed varieties in this webinar, I mentioned it in the chat because that subject could well be raised in future webinars.  The rights of breeders of new plant varieties are protected in this country under the Plant Varieties Act 1997,  Plant breeders' rights have long been regarded as a Cinderella area of intellectual property law in this country though not in countries like Australia with a large viticulture industry.  However, that is likely to change with the need to respond to the challenges of climate change that I mentioned above,   I have written an introduction to Plant Breeders' Rights with links to my other articles on the subject.

Different countries protect plant breeders' rights in different ways.   In the USA, for instance, they are protected by a special type of patent known as a "plant patent".   There is an International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants ("UPOV Convention") which can be downloaded from the website of The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).

Anyone wishing to discuss this article should call me on 020 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form

Friday 10 May 2024

M-SParc's Finance and Innovation Conference

MIT Lobby
By Madcoverboy at the English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20701447










































I returned to the Menai Science Park yesterday for its Finance and Innovation Conference.  I nearly missed it because I noticed a flat tyre just as I was about to set off early in the morning.   I managed to get it fixed by 11:30 which was when the conference was due to start.   After checking whether I could attend the afternoon session, I hit the motorway and arrived at M-SParc just as Gwenllian Owen was chairing what appeared to be a discussion between business angels.

Happily, that meant I arrived in good time for a lecture by Phil Budden from Massachusetts Institute of Technology by video link.  Dr Budden is the Senior Lecturer in Technological Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Strategic Management at the Sloan School.  His talk focussed on innovation-driven entities ("IDE"), a type of startup in a new technology that makes a loss at the start but then rapidly generates revenue.  He contrasted those businesses with other small and medium enterprises which tend to generate profits steadily,  The revenue curve of an IDE starts with a "U" representing a dip below the break-even line followed by an almost vertical upward curve.  The typical SME generates profits from the start and its curve is a steady 45 degrees.  The SME were the backbone of advanced economies but it was the IDE that generated growth.

As Dr Budden was speaking I thought of Amazon which had begun as an online bookseller reporting loss after loss in the early days and its Chinese equivalent Alibaba.  It prompted me to ask why it was only America and China that were producing tech giants like Alphabet and Baidu.  Where was the European or for that matter any other nation's equivalent?  In his reply, Dr Budden referred to the massive size of the US and Chinese economies.  They operate on a continental scale.  The UK, by contrast, was erecting impediments to transcontinental trade.  He invited me to respond and I referred to the US government's massive investment in defence that I had noticed as a graduate student in Los Angeles in the early 1970s.

A man in a dark green shirt asked for advice on setting up in the USA.  Dr Budden recommended among other things incorporation in Delaware.  He was right to say that many of America's leading companies are incorporated in that state.  That is because of its very flexible rules on incorporation known as "blue sky laws" and the strict regulation of corporations by its Court of Chancery.  Wales and England used to have a similar court until 1873 when the courts of equity and common law merged into one Supreme Court of Judicature albeit with separate divisions, procedural rules and practices which still exist today.

I tried to attract the attention of the man in the green shirt to introduce him to a US contact with a very similar practice to mine who should be able to help him but there were too many distractions for both of us.  Instead, I suggested to Gwenllian and Lois Bevan Shaw a seminar on expansion into the US market with a video link to my contact and others in the USA.  They seemed receptive to the idea and I have already started work on a proposal for such an event to be staged on Wales Enterprise Day in November.

Although Dr Budden's talk was the main attraction for me there were plenty of other good talks:
  • 11:30 - 12:00  Registration and brunch
  • 12:00 - 12:05  Welcome by Gwenllian and Lois
  • 12:05 - 12:25  Business Wales & Big Ideas Wales
  • 12:25 - 12:45 Samantha Williams and Ann Sudder Welsh Government Innovation Team
  • 12:45 - 13:00 Louise Jones InnovateUK
  • 13:00 - 13:30 Hannah Williams in conversation with Pryderi ap Rhisiart 
  • 13:40 - 13:50 Gwenllian Owen and Sean King and other angels 
  • 13:55 - 14:10 Anna Roberts of Explorage on her founder's journey
  • 14:10 - 14:50 Edward Thomas with Steven Livingston of IP Taxation and representatives of several funding institutions
  • 15:00 - 16:00 Dr Phil Buddon on IDEs
  • 16:00 - 16:15  Bangor University's voucher scheme for local businesses
  • 16:15 - 16:45 Case studies and flash grants
  • 16:45 - 17:15  Sundry grants
  • 17:15 - 18:30  Barbecue
One of my compatriots who works for the Department of Transport delivered part of his presentation in Welsh which was welcomed with well-deserved applause. It has inspired me to make more time to study the language.

The event took place in glorious sunshine.  The mountains across the strait have never looked lovelier.   Tim Powell posted a picture of that view on LinkedIn.   As he said in his post it is remarkable that anyone ever does any work when surrounded by such beauty.  The science park has hosted some great events in the 6 years that I have known them but this was one of the best.  Hearty congratulations to Pryderi, Gwenllian, Lois and everyone else who was involved in the conference.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article can call me on 020 7404 5252 during normal office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Wednesday 8 May 2024

M-SParc's World IP Day Celebrations 2024













Jane Lambert

World Intellectual Property Day is an international festival of creativity and innovation which takes place on or around 26 April of every year. It celebrates the entry into force of the international agreement that established the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO"), the UN specialist agency that assists governments to protect investment in creativity, enterprise and innovation ("intellectual assets") through a bundle of laws known collectively as "intellectual property".

Every year World IP Day revolves around a different theme. The theme for 2024 was "IP and the Sustainable Development Goals".  As I said in Perhaps the Most Complex World IP Day Theme Ever in NIPC News on 15 April 2024, this was challenging because it was so broad.  There are 17 goals which I have grouped into 4 categories: economic, environmental, political and social.  

I noted in IP and the Sustainable Development Goals in Wales on 14 Jan 2024 that Wales has gone further than most countries in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals by enacting the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. That Act establishes 7 Well-being Goals that are compatible with but not identical to the Sustainable Development Goals.  The relationship between the Well-being and Sustainable Development Goals is illustrated in the following table.

Categories

Sustainable Development Goals

Wellbeing Goals


Economic

Affordable and Clean Energy

A Prosperous Wales

Decent Work and Economic Growth

Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

No Poverty

Zero Hunger

Environmental

Clean Water and Sanitation

A Resilient Wales

Climate Action

Life below Water

Life on Land

Responsible Consumption and Production


Political

Partnership for the Goals

A Globally Responsible Wales

Peace Justice and Strong Institutions

Social

Good health and well-being

A Healthier Wales

Quality Education

A Wales of vibrant culture and thriving Welsh language

Gender Equality


A More Equal Wales

Reduced Inequalities

Sustainable Cities and Communities

A Wales of Cohesive Communities: 


Wales has no shortage of creative, enterprising and innovative men and women who can advance the above goals but they will need investment and Welsh and UK government cooperation.  For that reason, Gwenllian Owen and I  invited representatives of all those interests to our World IP Day Seminar.

Our keynote speaker was Mr Derek Walker, the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales.  He was our representative from the Welsh government in that his office was established by s.17 (1) of the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 to perform the functions set out in s.19 of the Act.  He was appointed by the Welsh Government under s.17 (2) in consultation with the Senedd.  In his short video address, Mr Walker summed up the aims of the legislation and his statutory responsibilities and how innovation and creativity will further them.

Dr Jonathan Tudpr, Investment Partner of the Clean Growth Fund represented investors. He had been sitting next to me on Gwenllian Owen's table at the St David's Day Celebrations at the Guildhall and it was then that I invited him to address our seminar on World Intellectual Property Day.  In his succinct but comprehensive presentation, he introduced the audience to the Fund and outlined some of the projects in which it had invested and the Fund's criteria for investment.  Despite its strong connections with Wales the Fund had not yet made an investment in Wales. That prompted me to observe that there were many companies in M-SParc and Aberinnovation that might well meet the Fund's criteria.  Dr Tudor invited them to contact him through the Fund's website.  

One of the innovative entrepreneurs whom I had in mind when speaking to Dr Tudor was Tom Burke. He had helped to launch Animated Technologies and Haia and he was now working with M-SParc as its Digital Innovation Manager in which capacity he had delivered Hac Iaith.  He could thus cover the "Prosperous Wales" and "Vibrant Culture and Thriving Welsh Language" goals of the Welsh legislation as well as many of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals.  In his presentation, he discussed how Haia had evolved from a video conferencing to an events platform, how he had used technology to facilitate language training and the intellectual property rights that protected his companies' investment in technology and creativity.  He briefly touched on software-implemented inventions for which he had been told that patents were very difficult to obtain.  This will be a topic for a seminar in the near future.

In her capacity as Regional Policy Advisor at the Intellectual Property Office  Emma Richards represented the UK government.  As her mission extends to the devolved nations she had a crucial role in assisting Welsh creatives, entrepreneurs and innovators to achieve the Well-Being Goals.  Ms Richards outlined the work of the IPO and its relationship with the central government, the services it provided, the IP attaché network and the help that it could offer to startups and SMEs as they begin to expand and the IPO's commitment to use the Welsh language in all its services.  I asked whether the hearing officers and examiners could speak the language and was assured that anyone who wishes to submit a patent, trade mark or design application in Welsh or give evidence or present arguments in that language before a tribunal could do so.

Our last speaker, Elinor Cavil of DLA Piper gave her whole presentation in Weksh.  She had the difficult task of gathering all the strands of the seminar together which she did admirably.  She introduced herself, her firm and its services, gave a quick overview of intellectual property law and discussed how different intellectual property rights advanced different aspects of the Welsh Well-Being and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals.  Ms Cavil attended last year's IP Law Summer School in Cambridge and she impressed me and my fellow faculty member, Tim Powell, with her knowledge of, and enthusiasm for, intellectual property law.

During the time that I have known Tim Powell, he has shown considerable interest in my work in  M-SParc.  His previous professional commitments had always coincided with M-SParc activities but he has now set up a new practice with an office in Chester that should enable him to spend more time in Wales  In the panel discussion at the end of the seminar, I invited him to introduce himself and his practice to the audience.  He also made several pertinent observations and asked some interesting questions at various stages of the seminar for which I was very grateful. He has recently posted this very kind comment to Linkedin.

This was not only the most ambitious and challenging theme for World IP Day it was also the most interesting and satisfying.   I am grateful to all the speakers and everyone who worked on the project.   I need to acknowledge in particular the contributions of Emily Roberts in the early planning stages for this event and Gwenllian Owen in the latter stages and on the day.  Without their resourcefulness and ingenuity, this event could not have taken place.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during normal office hours or send me a message through my contact page,