Intellectual Property

Specialist Intellectual Property Firm Wynne-Jones Opens London Office

Posted on

This launch comes as the firm has achieved double digit growth for the third year running.

The continued popularity of entrepreneurial business trends such as crowd-funding has led to a surge in interest in brand and invention protection generally and increased client opportunities for Wynne-Jones IP.

The new London office will also accommodate the UK Head Office of Aipex BV, the pan-European IP law firm that Wynne-Jones IP owns in conjunction with a small number of other prominent European IP firms.

The office will be headed up by Partner Victor Caddy, who has more than twenty years’ experience as a Trade Mark and Design Attorney and Litigator.

Commenting on the opening of the London office, Caddy said: “A year ago, we set out to launch our first London office within four years and have achieved this in less than twelve months.

“This is thanks to the high quality of the team we have managing our business planning, and the dedication and enthusiasm of all our staff.

“Aipex is a ready-made solution to intellectual property challenges of Brexit, and, for Aipex to open a London Head Office at this time is a no-brainer”.

Wynne-Jones website here

Trademarks – “A BrewDog’s Breakfast”

Posted on

Source: ENSafrica via monaq.com

This article is of local interest to me.

“The recent storm in the UK about Scottish craft brewing company BrewDog’s decision to invoke its trade mark rights against much smaller rivals highlights the difficulties and negative repercussions that can arise when it comes to enforcing trade mark rights.

So, when BrewDog started pursuing much smaller companies on trade mark issues it became a major story, with people seeing their actions as hypocritical.

The allegation that it was acting like ”just another multinational corporate machine” stung, and the company made it known that one of the two founding partners would personally take care of the situation.

It went on to blame its lawyers for the whole debacle, claiming they had been overzealous and stating that: ”Although they wear suits and are mostly sensible folks, lawyers can sometimes go a bit crazy and forget the kind of business we are and how we behave. They are sorry for their actions and we have put them on washing up duty for a week.”

Trade mark rights are, of course, enormously important, and they should be enforced. But a thoughtful and nuanced approach is often required.

In the case of a company that has a very particular image (like BrewDog), that approach should include a consideration of the brand’s DNA.”

Source article here

 

Great Technology! Pity About the Value.

Posted on Updated on

Two interesting & informative articles from Australian IP Specialists Griffith Hack.

“In a corporate environment preoccupied with the risks and opportunities of disruptive technology, the inadequacies in investment appraisal are alarming. Many early stage tech companies starve through lack of funds. Others feast on funding before fading to irrelevance. Some thrive.”

In an attempt to pick winners, some investors use a simple formula, which incorporates an assessment of the target’s IP.

The first article below asks how the quality of IP protection can be assessed, considering a range of legal rights.

The second is a case study involving a mining equipment company with a patent portfolio protecting novel technology, the benefits of which had been assessed through engineering studies. In order to articulate and quantify its economic potential, the company commissioned an independent valuation of its core asset: its patent portfolio.

The two articles are here:

Great Technology! Pity About the Value.

IP valuation & capital raising

Amazon wins $1.5 billion transfer pricing dispute in US Tax Court

Posted on

Source: mental.com, 24 March 2017

“Amazon.com Inc on March 23 won a US Tax Court case, fending off IRS transfer pricing adjustments relating to a cost-sharing agreement (CSA) buy-in payment. The transfer pricing adjustments would have increased the online retailer’s taxable income by more than $1.5 billion in 2005 and 2006.

The case concerns a 2005 CSA pursuant to which Amazon.com, Inc., and its domestic subsidiaries transferred to the Luxembourg subsidiary intangible assets required to operate Amazon’s European website business.

Siding with Amazon, the Tax Court rejected the IRS’s recalculation of the buy-in payment, concluding it was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The CUT method, used by Amazon, was the best method to calculate the CSA buy-in payment, the Court said.”

Source article here