WORLD TRADE IP/N/6/GBR/1
13September 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-3545)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
CHECKLIST OFISSUES ONENFORCEMENT1
Responses from theUnited Kingdom
Introductory Remarks
A. Theterm“intellectual property ”isdefined intheTRIPS Agreement ascovering thecategories
ofrights thesubject ofSections 1to7ofPartIIofthatAgreement. Sofarasconcerns theUnited
Kingdom, these rights (IPRs) canbedivided into:
- those granted viaaregistration process, namely:
(a) patents (granted under thePatents Acts1949 and1977);
(b) registered trademarks (registered under theTrade Marks Acts1938 and1994); and
(c) registered designs (granted under theRegistered Designs Act1949, asnowsetout
inamended forminSchedule 4oftheCopyright, Designs andPatents Act1988, the
“CDPA ”);and
- those which arecreated orariseautomatically, namely:
(d) copyrights (andrights inpublic performances) nowrespectively governed byParts I
andIIoftheCDPA;
(e) unregistered “design rights ”(including protection ofsemi-conductor topographies)
created andprotected byPartIIIoftheCDPA;
(f) the“Common Law”2of“passing off”(which provides aremedy formisrepresentation
oftheorigin ofgoods orservices andtherefore provides protection against unauthorized
useoftrademarks which, while unregistered, havegained through theiruseareputation
inthepublic mind); and
(g) theprotection oftradesecrets which arises under theprinciples ofthe“Common Law”
protecting mis-use ofconfidential information.
1Document IP/C/5
2Bythe"Common Law" ismeant thelawwhich isunwritten, butapplied asamatter oftradition andcustom.IP/N/6/GBR/1
Page2
Unless otherwise stated, thestatements below concerning theprocedures available forthe
enforcement ofthese IPRs, andoftheremedies forinfringement thereof, donotdiffer between these
various IPRforms.
B. TheUnited Kingdom ofGreat Britain andNorthern Ireland consists ofthree legally separate
territories: (1)England andWales; (2)Scotland; and(3)Northern Ireland. Theabove-mentioned
statutes governing thesubstantive lawsofpatents, registered trademarks, registered designs anddesign
rights apply throughout theUnited Kingdom, asalsodotheprinciples applied bytheso-called “Common
Law”.
C. InNorthern Ireland, thecourt structure andprocedural lawisclosely similar tothatinEngland
andWales. Although therearegreater differences inthecourtstructures andjudicial procedures existing
inScotland, these generally havelittleornoeffect onenforcement ofIPRs. TheAnswers below are
therefore provided mainly withreference tothecourts ofEngland andWales withreferences tothe
“similar ”courts intheother partsoftheUnited Kingdom, asdescribed inSection Fbelow. However,
separate references totheseother partsoftheUnited Kingdom areincluded where thedifferences may
beseenasmore thanonesofasemantic nature.
D. Registered IPRsaregranted orregistered through thePatent Office which isheaded by“The
Comptroller ofPatents, Trademarks andDesigns ”(“theComptroller ”).TheIPRstatutes provide the
Comptroller withcertain limited judicial powers, theexercise ofwhich issubject toappeal tothePatents
Court (ortotheCourt ofSession inmatters particularly related toScotland), withthepossibility of
further appeals therefrom totherespective Courts ofAppeal and,possibly, eventotheHouse ofLords.
However, astheComptroller isaperson appointed bytheExecutive, whereas thejudges ofthecourts
areappointed bytheCrown, forpresent purposes thejudicial powers oftheComptroller aretreated
asadministrative, rather thanjudicial.
E. With these introductory remarks, theWTO Checklist ofquestions isnowanswered.
Civil andAdministrative Procedures andRemedies
(a) Civiljudicial procedures andremedies
1. Specify thecourts which have jurisdiction overIPRinfringement cases.
TheUnited Kingdom hasseparate courts fortheadjudication ofcivilandcriminal matters.
(a) InEngland andWales civiljurisdiction isdivided between the“High Court ”anda
system of“county courts ”fortheadjudication ofmatters oflesser importance. The
High Court hasthree Divisions withmostIPRdisputes falling within thejurisdiction
ofthe“Chancery Division ”.Within thisDivision thereisaspecialist “Patents Court ”
which hasexclusive jurisdiction toheardisputes concerning patents andregistered
designs. Thejudges ofthisPatents Court arespecially assigned andareusually persons
who,before theirappointment, hadextensive experience asadvocates inIPRdisputes.
These judges arealsogeneral judges oftheChancery Division and,assuch, areoften
assignedcasesrelatingtoenforcementoftrademarks(whetherregisteredorunregistered)
andofcopyrights (including rights related thereto).
Below theHigh Court areasystem of“county courts ”intended foradjudication of
more minor disputes. These county courts havejurisdiction overunregistered IPRs,
butnotoverregistered ones. However, in1990, there wasestablished a“PatentsIP/N/6/GBR/1
Page3
County Court ”(withjurisdiction throughout England andWales) before which disputes
concerning patents, registered designs andunregistered design rights maybebrought).
Thiscourtdoesnothavejurisdictioninrelationtoenforcementofregisteredtrademarks,
butthislackofjurisdiction iscurrently being reviewed.
(b) InScotland, theequivalent oftheEnglish HighCourt istheCourt ofSession, andthe
“sheriff courts ”aretheequivalent oftheEnglish “county courts “.However, there
isnospecialist “patents court”,although onejudge oftheCourt ofSession ”is
nominated asthe“Patents Judge ”before whom aretriedcases which inEngland and
Wales would come before itsPatents Court. TheCourt ofSession alone hasjurisdiction
inrelation toproceedings principally concerned withtheregistration ofvalidity of
registered IPRs.
(c) InNorthern Ireland, theposition issimilar withaHighCourt ofNorthern Ireland and
aseries ofcounty courts formore minor disputes. However, there hasbeenlittle
litigation onIPRsinthisterritory and,consequently, nospecialist patents courts have
beencreated.
(d) Asforappeals, thereis(ineachofEngland andWales, Scotland andNorthern Ireland)
aCourt ofAppeal (thatinScotland being known as“theInner House oftheCourt
ofSession ”)towhich there isanautomatic rightofappeal from theHigh Court (in
Scotland, theOuter House oftheCourt ofSession) andfromthePatents County Court
inmatters ofenforcement ofIPRs. From suchcourts ofappeal, afurther appeal is
possible totheJudicial Committee oftheHouse ofLords. ThisisaCommittee of
theUpper House oftheLegislature which isconstituted byanumber of“LawLords ”
whoaresenior judges appointed tohearfinalappeals from thecourts below. Such
appeals canusually onlybebrought withleave ofthecourt below, oruponleave being
given bytheHouse ofLords itself, acting through asub-committee ofitsJudicial
Committee.
InEngland andWales, enforcement ofpatents, registered designs andunregistered
design rights cantakeplace (largely attheoption oftherights holder) either inthe
Patents Court (partoftheChancery Division oftheHighCourt) orinthePatents County
Court. Enforcement ofregistered trademarks is,atpresent, onlypossible before the
High Court (with cases normally heard before itsChancery Division). BoththeHigh
Court (again normally through itsChancery Division), aswellasthevarious county
courts, have jurisdiction overenforcement ofother forms ofIPRs. InScotland,
enforcement ismainly before theCourt ofSession. InNorthern Ireland, enforcement
ofIPRs ismainly before theHigh Courts which existinthose territories.
2. (1) Which persons have standing toassert IPRs?
Inthecaseofregistered IPRs (assetoutinSection A(a)-(c) oftheIntroductory Remarks),
theproprietor oftheright, andalsoany“exclusive licensee ”thereunder (being alicensee under the
IPRwithsome rightunder itwhich isexclusive evenoftherightholder) hasastanding toassert that
IPR,provided thatsuchperson isrecorded asproprietor orexclusive licensee intheappropriate register
ofthose rights. However, anexclusive trademark licensee maynotbring infringement proceedings
against theregistered proprietor ofthemark. Inaddition, aregistered non-exclusive licensee under
atrademark may(unless thelicence stipulates tothecontrary) callupon theregistered proprietor to
commence enforcement proceedings and,ifthisisnotdone, suchlicensee maythendosoinhisown
name asifhewere theproprietor.IP/N/6/GBR/1
Page4
Inthecaseofunregistereddesignrightsandcopyrights,enforcementproceedingsmaybebrought
byanyone claiming tobetheowner ofsuchright, either asaresult ofcreation orofsubsequent operation
oflaworbyvirtue ofassignment orother transmission oftheright. Such enforcement proceedings
canalsobebrought (except against theowner) byanexclusive licensee (asdefined above).
Unregistered trademarks areenforced bya“passing off”action inwhich theplaintiff must
show thatthedefendant hasmisappropriated some partoftheplaintiff 's“goodwill ”,thatisthat,as
aresult ofareputation gained from pastactivities, members ofthepublic arelikely tobemisled by
theactsofthedefendant astotheorigin ofgoods orservices forwhich thepublic hasanexpectation
thatsuchareassociated withtheplaintiff. Likewise, anaction fortheprotection oftrade secrets may
bebrought byanyperson claiming tobetheowner ofsuchsecret andtohavebeendamaged byan
unauthorized disclosure ofthesame.
(2) How maytheyberepresented?
Before theHigh Court, anatural person mayappear inperson, butacorporate entity must
berepresented. Representation (inthesense ofhaving direct contact withthelitigating partyandhaving
responsibility forthegeneral conduct ofthelitigation) iswithapractising solicitor (who isformally
anofficer ofthecourt subject toitscontrol indisciplinary matters). However, before theHigh Court
(inEngland andWales, orinNorthern Ireland), onlycounsel (thatispersons whoarepractising
barristers) havearightofaudience (thatisarighttomake oralsubmissions tothatcourt), andthese
persons areinstructed bysolicitors andnotdirectly bythelitigating party. Before thecounty courts
(including thespecialist Patents County Court inEngland andWales) asolicitor usually (though not
always) hasaconcurrent rightofaudience withthatofabarrister; and,inthePatents County Court,
registered patent agents (also known aspatent attorneys) have (with solicitors) both aright of
representation andarightofaudience. Also, inthatcourt, counsel mayactondirect instructions from
thelitigating party.
InScotland, aperson mayberepresented intheCourt ofSession onlybyanadvocate orby
asolicitor having arightofaudience before thatcourt andajuristic person must besorepresented.
IntheSheriff Court aperson maygenerally berepresented onlybyanadvocate orsolicitor. Anadvocate
willappear ineither court onlyontheinstructions ofasolicitor. Bothadvocates andsolicitors owe
theirparamount dutytothecourt andareinthatsense officers ofthecourt.
(3) Arethere anyrequirements formandatory personal appearances before acourt
bytherightholder?
There arenosuchrequirements, butofcourse therightholder mustbeidentified assuch, and
(unlessthedefendantmakesanappropriateadmission)apersonrepresentingtherightholdermustpresent
proof ofentitlement topresent theclaim inquestion.
3. What authority dothejudicial authorities have toorder, attherequest ofanopposing
party, aparty toaproceeding toproduce evidence which lieswithin itscontrol?
Inthelegalsystems operating within England, Wales andNorthern Ireland, aparty tolitigation
hasanobligation (either automatically oruponorder ofthecourt) togive“discovery ”ofsuchdocuments
which itmayhaveinitscustody, possession orpower which relate totheissues inthelitigation. This
involves firstproducing alistofsuchdocuments andthentheopposing party hasthepower toinspect
andtakecopies ofthose documents, savewhere alegalorprofessional privilege isproperly claimed,
forexample inrelation tocommunications relating tolegal advice orthepreparation ofwitness
statements. Anybreach ofthisdiscovery obligation isregarded asacontempt ofcourt punishable
bythecourt assuch.IP/N/6/GBR/1
Page5
Where theopposing party canshow thatrelevant documents arelikely toexist, butwhich have
notbeendisclosed inthisdiscovery procedure, thecourt maymake anorder thatsuchdocuments be
produced oranaffidavit sworn byaresponsible person testifying onoaththatno,ornofurther, such
documents exist. However, thecourts havediscretion towaive orlimittherequirement fordiscovery
where itwould beunduly onerous orwhere thecourt considers thatproduction ofaclassofdocuments
isnotnecessary intheinterests ofjustice having regard tothedesirability oflimiting litigation costs.
Using these powers, thePatents Court inEngland andWales hasrecently issued aruleofpractice
thatinpatent litigation, without aspecific order ofthecourt, discovery ontheissueofpatent validity
should belimited todocuments generated twoyears either sideofthepriority dateofthepatent, and
thatnodiscovery needbegiven ofthealleged infringement ifthedefendant hasalready submitted a
detailed description ofthis.
Thecourts alsohavewidepowers toorder inspection ofpremises byrepresentatives ofthe
opposing party upon sufficient reason forsuchanorder being shown. Inappropriate cases, such
inspection proceedings maybeordered inaudita altera parte,asnoted inAnswer 11below.
Inallsuchcases, there aresafeguards fortheprotection oftradesecrets, seeAnswer 4below.
ThecourtsinScotlandhaveacommonlawpowertocompeltheproductionofdocumentsbearing
ontheissues offacttobedetermined. Thepower isusually exercised bythecourt approving a
specification ofdocuments prepared bytheparty seeking production, appointing acommissioner and
granting diligence forrecovery ofthedocuments. Theexercise ofthepower isamatter ofdiscretion
andisalways exercised subject toconsiderations ofrelevancy, confidentiality, public interest andthe
privilege ofhavers against self-incrimination. Thecommissioner isusually anadvocate or,inthesheriff
court, asolicitor.
Thecourtalsohasastatutorypowertoordertheinspection,photographing,preservation,custody
anddetention ofdocuments andother property which appear tothecourt tobeproperty astowhich
question mayrelevantly ariseinanyexisting civilproceedings orincivilproceedings which arelikely
tobebrought. Itmayorder theproduction andrecovery ofanysuchproperty, thetaking ofsamples
thereof, andthecarrying outofanyexperiments thereon ortherewith. Inrelation tothestatutory power,
theprivilege ofhavers against self-incrimination cannot beclaimed inrespect ofproceedings for
infringement, toobtain disclosure ofinformation about infringement ortoprevent anyapprehended
infringement ofIPR.
4. What means exist toidentify andprotect confidential information brought forward as
evidence?
Theproduction ofdocuments inthediscovery procedure inEngland andWales, andinNorthern
Ireland, asoutlined inAnswer 3above, besides excluding documents ofalegal nature forwhich a
claim toprivilege canbemade, issubject to“theimplied undertaking ”.Thisisanautomatic, unwritten,
promise tothecourt thatthedocuments inspected orprovided aspartofthatprocedure should bekept
confidential andtheinformation contained therein must notbeusedforanypurpose other thanthe
litigation inwhich thediscovery hasbeengiven. Anybreach ofthis”implied undertaking ”ispunishable
asa“contempt ofcourt”.
While thereisnoautomatic restriction astothepersons whoareentitled toinspect documents
produced inthediscovery procedure (forthepurposes ofthatlitigation) where thedocuments disclose,
orarelikely todisclose, tradesecrets, thecourt mayimpose aspecial “confidentiality order”defining
alimited classofpersons entitled toinspect thediscovery documents, oradefined sub-set ofthem.
Suchanorder willpermit inspection ofthedocuments bypotential expert witnesses whoareindependent
oftheopposing party, aswellasbyappointed lawyers (including patent attorneys), butwillexcludeIP/N/6/GBR/1
Page6
employees anddirectors ofthatparty, saveforoneperson (who must giveaspecific confidentiality
undertaking) inorder thatsuchparty mayhavesufficient knowledge totakedecisions onthefuture
conduct ofthelitigation.
Acourt willnormally holdthesubstantive trialofthelitigation inacourt opentomembers
ofthepublic witharight forjournalists toattend andreport theproceedings andtoreceive copies
ofanyevidence presented inwriting. However, some ofthepreliminary proceedings maybeheld
“inChambers ”,thatisinacourt closed tothepublic. Nevertheless, thecourt haspower tositin
camera ,thatisinclosed session, anditwilldosowhere itissatisfied thatitisnecessary todoso
toprotect legitimate trade secrets. Thecourt alsohaspower tomake orders protecting theidentity
ofwitnesses and/or toforbid thereporting ofcertain aspects ofacase, butisreluctant tousethese
powers since thecardinal ruleofBritish justice isthatjustice mustnotonlybedone, butit“mustbe
seentobedone”.However, themere factthatinformation presented tothecourt isofaconfidential
nature isnotinitselfsufficient forthecourt toorder restrictions toprotect it.Thiswillonlybeordered
when thiscardinal ruleisassessed asbeing outweighed byahigher needtoprotect some information
which itisnotnecessary fortheproper public administration ofjustice tobemade available tothe
public atlarge. Thecourts aregenerally reluctant tomake suchorders except inthecontext oftrade
secrets which thecourt readily accepts should beprotected from public disclosure.
InScotland itisforaparty claiming confidentiality tomake thatplea.Where confidentiality
isclaimed foranydocument orother property sought toberecovered under theprocedures outlined
inQuestion 3suchdocument orother property is,where practicable, enclosed inasealed packet.
Aparty seeking tohavesuchasealed packet opened orrecovery allowed ofproperty inrespect of
which confidentiality isclaimed maydosoonlywiththeauthority ofthecourt.
Thecourt alsohasthepower toimpose conditions relating totheuseofinformation recovered
bycommission anddiligence. Itmayforexample order thatagreements areinplace bymeans of
appropriate undertakings or,ifnecessary byorder ofthecourt, toidentify those persons towhom the
information maybedisclosed andonwhatconditions itistobedisclosed tothem. Thecourt may
order caution foranyloss,damage orexpenses which maybeincurred asaresult ofanorder under
thestatutory power referred toinQuestion 3.
InScotland alsocourt proceedings arenormally opentothepublic butthecourts havethe
discretion inspecial cases tositinprivate.
5. Describetheremediesthatmaybeorderedbythejudicialauthoritiesandcriteria,legislative
orjurisprudential, fortheir use:
(1) injunctions;
While, intheory, thegrant ofaninjunction, ortheScottish equivalent, aninterdict, lieswithin
thediscretion ofthecourt, itiscustomary, uponarightholder having obtained adecision thattheacts
ofthedefendant haveamounted toaninfringement ofanIPR,forthecourt tomake anorder injuncting
thedefendant from anyfurther infringement ofthatIPR. Anydefiance ofthatorder will(atthesuit
oftherightholder, orupon theinitiative ofthecourt itself) bepunishable bythecourt asa“contempt
ofcourt”.Until purged byanappropriate apology tothecourt, aperson found tobeincontempt can
befinedanunlimited sumofmoney bythecourt and/or senttoprison foradefined orundefined period,
andinthecaseofacorporate entity anorder maybemade forthesequestration ofitsassets. Ofcourse,
thesearemaximum powers, buttheirexistence causes applications forrelief forbreach ofaninjunction
toberare. Such aninjunction willnormally lastfortheremainder ofthelifeoftheIPRbut,inthe
caseofmisappropriation ofconfidential information, willnormally beforalimited period sufficient
toprovide recompense totherights holder. Thisisbecause thecourt recognises thatother membersIP/N/6/GBR/1
Page7
ofthepublic havehadthatsecret made available tothem andcannot, asmembers ofthepublic, be
prevented indefinitely from making useofinformation which isnowavailable forothers touse.
(2) damages, including recovery ofprofits, andexpenses, including attorney 'sfees;
Once acourt hasfound infringement ofanIPR,theplaintiff isentitled automatically toan
award ofdamages, unless theinfringer (other thanininstances ofinfringement ofaregistered trademark)
canshow thathewasnotaware oftheexistence oftheIPRandhadnoreason tobelieve thatsuch
might exist.
Normally, thecourt thenorders theholding ofaseparate enquiry toassess theamount ofthose
damages.Damagesassuch(thoughseesub-answer(4)below)areassessedtocompensatetherightholder
forthelosswhich ithassuffered asaresult oftheinfringing actswhich havebeenestablished. Such
lossisnot(byarecent decision oftheEnglish Patents Court) limited tothelosssuffered directly by
therightholder butextends toanylosswhich cansaidtohavebeencaused by,orwhich resulted from,
theinfringing actcommitted bythedefendants. Thus, lossofsalesofassociated equipment, andfrom
contracts forrepairs andmaintenance, haveasufficient causal connection totheinfringing actasto
beconsidered toflowdirectly fromthatinfringement. Therightholder maythusbecompensated for
suchassociated losses. However, therightholder willonlybeabletoobtain compensation intheform
oftheprofits lostbyhimifitcandemonstrate tothecourt that,“butfor”theinfringing act,itwould
havemade those profits. Where thiscannot (asistheusual case) beshown, thecourt willassess the
direct damage suffered bytherightholder bytheinfringing actsonthebasis ofareasonable royalty;
andthiswillbesowhere therightholder hasgranted licences tothirdparties onterms which canbe
seentoindicate thelevelofsucharoyalty.
Inthecaseofinfringement ofcopyright (orrelated right), orofanunregistered design right,
thecourt canalsoaward “additional damages ”incases ofperceived flagrant infringement orwhere
undue benefit hasaccrued totheinfringer.
Astoexpenses, andattorney 'sfees,itisarulewithin thelegalsystems ofEngland, Wales
andNorthern Ireland thatthecourt makes anorder infavour ofthesuccessful party thatthelosing
party paysitscosts(expenses inScotland) “tobetaxed ifnototherwise agreed ”.Under suchanorder
thesuccessful party willnormally recover asumcorresponding tothereasonable sums which were
reasonably expended inthelitigation (including court costs andattorney 'sfees). Ifthese cannot be
agreed between theparties, suchcosts areassessed byaCourt Taxing Master. However, asaparty
willnormally spend more money onacasethanataxing master willconsider reasonable, andassuch
Master willdisallow allclaimed costsforwhich therearenotsufficient evidence ofhowthecostshave
beenincurred andofreceipts forexpenditure, asuccessful party will,inactuality, probably recover
onlyabout 60%ofitsactual costs. Where thecourt considers thatlitigation (orasingle issue init)
wasbrought unreasonably, itcanmake anorder forthecoststhereof tobeassessed onan“indemnity
basis”.Under thisbasis theparty'scosts areassessed asitstotalcosts other thanthose which were
unreasonably incurred. Anorder forindemnity costs ismandatory ifadefendant unsuccessfully
challenges thevalidity ofapatent which haspreviously beenupheld inrevocation proceedings and
a“certificate ofvalidity ”hasbeenissued.
InScotland theaward ofexpenses isamatter forthediscretion ofthecourts. Theprinciple
upon which theScottish courts proceed inawarding expenses isthatthecostoflitigation should fall
ontheparty whohascaused thelitigation. Thegeneral ruleforapplying thisprinciple isthatexpenses
areawarded infavour ofthesuccessful party. Where theapplication ofthegeneral rulewould not
carry outtheprinciple thecourt willtakeaccount ofconduct onthepartofthesuccessful party which
mayhaveunnecessarily orunreasonably caused orprotracted thelitigation.IP/N/6/GBR/1
Page8
Anaccount ofexpenses isprepared and,intheabsence ofagreement, taxed bytheauditor
ofcourt asbetween party andparty orasbetween solicitor andclient. Anaward ofexpenses without
qualification implies expenses taxed asbetween party andparty. Anaccount willnotbetaxed onthe
higher basis, i.e.asbetween solicitor andclient unless expressly awarded bythecourt. Where the
validity ofapatent isunsuccessfully challenged thatposition isreversed byalegislative provision
[Section 65ofthePatents Act1977], i.e.itisprovided thataparty shallbeentitled toexpenses as
between solicitor andclient unless thecourt otherwise directs.
(3) destruction orother disposal ofinfringing goods andmaterials/implements for
their production;
Forpatent infringement, acourt hasstatutory power tomake anorder fortheinfringer “to
deliver upordestroy anypatented product inrelation towhich thepatent hasbeeninfringed orany
article inwhich thatproduct isinextricably comprised ”.Suchanorder isroutinely made, though with
theinfringer having thechoice ofdestroying thearticles (with verification onoaththathehasdone
so),rather thanallow thepatentee access tothose infringing products: export oftheproducts asan
alternative todelivery upordestruction would notnormally beallowed, except perhaps inanexceptional
case. Forinfringement ofaregistered design asimilar order isprobably available aspartoftheinherent
powers ofthecourt, though suchpower isnotlisted assuchintherespective statute.
Forinfringement ofaregistered trademark, thecourtmayorder theoffending signtobeerased,
removed orobliterated frominfringing goods, materials orarticles inthepossession, custody orcontrol
oftheinfringer; orforsuchgoods, materials orarticles tobedelivered uptothetrademark proprietor,
andthecourtcanthenorder theirdestruction. Orders forsuchdelivery up,andsubsequent destruction,
arealsoavailableaspartofthecriminalprocedurefortrademarkinfringement(seeAnswer24(3)below).
Forinfringement ofcopyright (orrelated right), orofanunregistered design right, thecourt
may(aspartofitsinherent powers) similarly order delivery upofinfringing works inthecustody
ofthedefendant. Inaddition, orders fordelivery up,andsubsequent destruction, ofinfringing goods
arealsoavailable aspartofthecriminal procedure forcopyright infringement (seeAnswer 24(3) below).
Under theCommon Law, thecourt likewise probably hasinherent powers tomake orders for
delivery up,ordestruction, ofarticles coming intoexistence forthepurposes of“passing off”oras
aresult ofknowingly acting inbreach ofconfidence.
(4) anyother remedies.
Asanalternative toanaward ofdamages, arightholder, upon afinding ofinfringement of
hisrights, mayelecttoseek, instead ofdamages, an“account ofprofits ”.Thisrequires thecourt
toassess theprofits which theinfringer hasmade asaresult ofhisinfringing actsandtopaythese
overtotherightholder. Such anelection mustbemade before holding anenquiry intothedamages
suffered bytherightholder asaresult oftheinfringing acts(forwhich seesub-answer (2)above).
Thisremedy israrely claimed because oftheuncertainty ofascertaining theinfringer 'sprofits, bearing
inmind thejurisprudential uncertainty oftheextent towhich overhead andcentral expenses incurred
bytheinfringer canbetaken intoaccount. Theremedy ismostlikely tobeusedincasesofinfringement
ofIPRs where therightholder hassuffered nodirect damage from theinfringing acts,forexample
because ofalackoflegitimate working oftherightwhich hasbeeninfringed, orincases ofbreach
ofconfidence (including infringement ofcopyright byunauthorized publication ofawork which the
copyright owner wished tokeepsecret).IP/N/6/GBR/1
Page9
6. Inwhat circumstances, ifany,dojudicial authorities have theauthority toorder the
infringer toinform therightholder oftheidentity ofthird parties involved intheproduction and
distribution ofthegoods orservices found tobeinfringing andoftheir channels ofdistribution?
Itiswithin theinherent powers ofthecourts oftheUnited Kingdom tomake suchorders, even
(inanappropriate case)priortoafinding ofinfringement. Thecourts willroutinely order aninfringer
toprovide information which identifies those whohavesupplied tohiminfringing articles, andalso
those whohavesupplied particular means bywhich these havebeenmade, provided inthislatter case
thatsuchmeans were supplied withknowledge, orareasonable belief, thatsuchwould beusedin
infringing acts. However, thecourts arelessinclined tomake orders identifying thedestination of
infringing articles, andwillgenerally notdosoifthearticles havebeenexported, though suchwill
bedoneifthecourt isofthebelief thatitwould bejusttodosointheparticular circumstances before
it.
However, uncertainty overinherent powers oftheScottish courts toorder disclosure of
information astotheidentity ofsuchthird parties where proceedings hadnotcommenced orwere
undefended, ledtotheenactment ofsection 19oftheLawReform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland)
Act1985which amended section 1oftheAdministration ofJustice (Scotland) Act1972. Asaresult,
theScottish courts nowhavepower under section 1toorder anyperson todisclose suchinformation
ashehasastotheidentity ofanypersons whoappear tothecourt tobepersons whomight bewitnesses
inexisting civilproceedings before thatcourt orincivilproceedings which arelikely tobebrought;
ormight bedefenders inanycivilproceedings which appear tothecourt tobelikely tobebrought.
7. (1) Describeprovisionsrelatingtotheindemnificationofdefendantswrongfullyenjoined.
Apreliminary (interlocutory) injunction (interim interdict inScotland) willonlybeordered
byacourt onthebasis oftheplaintiff giving tothecourt anundertaking that,ifthedefendant is
subsequently found tohavebeenwrongly enjoined, theplaintiff willpaydamages therefor tothe
defendant. Thecourt canrequire security forsuchanundertaking tobegiven, bywayofadeposit
ofmoney inthecourt'sfunds orbyproviding aguarantee fromabankorother reliable source offunds,
andwillnormally dosointhecaseofaplaintiff resident outside oftheEuropean Union.
InScotland there isnosuchundertaking. Interim interdict isgranted entirely attheriskof
thepetitioner. Hewillbeliable fortheconsequences oftheinterdict should theparty interdicted
thereafter show theapplication tohavebeenwrongful andclaim damages forlosssustained asaresult
oftheinterdict. Thecourt ingranting interim interdict mayorder caution tobefound andwhere it
doessointerim interdict willnotoperate untilcaution islodged.
Upon anorder forafinalinjunction afterfulltrial, thecourt maylikewise require suchan
undertaking (andsecurity ifappropriate) tobegiven iftheunsuccessful defendant seeks tosuspend
theinjunction pending appeal andtheplaintiff objects tothis.
English lawdoesnotrecognise assuchanaction for“unjust enrichment ”andthus,ifadefendant
should beenjoined byacourt frominfringing anIPRand,subsequently, thatIPRshould benullified
inproceedings involving another party, theinjunction would thenlapse because ofthelapse ofthe
IPRunder which itwasgranted, buttheperson enjoined would nothavearemedy forbeing wrongfully
enjoined, since (sofarasheisconcerned) thegrant oftheinjunction wasatthetimealawful act.IP/N/6/GBR/1
Page10
(2) Towhat extent arepublic authorities and/or officials liable insuchasituation and
what “remedial measures ”areapplicable tothem?
Thejudges inthecourts oftheUnited Kingdom are(under theCommon Law) immune from
litigation intheevent thattheirdecisions maysubsequently beoverturned, either byanappellate court,
orbyacourt inanother casereaching adifferent conclusion.
TheComptroller is(under thevarious IPRstatutes relating toregistered IPRs) generally immune
from liability resulting from theperformance ofhisstatutory duties.
8. (1) Describe provisions governing thelength andcostofproceedings.
There arenosuchprovisions inthelawsoftheUnited Kingdom. Thelength ofproceedings
forenforcement ofIPRsisunder thecontrol ofthecourt before which those proceedings arebrought.
Thecourt ingeneral doesnotkeeptoapre-set timetable. Rather therulesofcourt stipulate periods
fordealing withvarious pre-trial matters, which periods canusually beextended byagreement between
theparties, without application tothecourt. However, atanystage, aparty mayapply tothecourt
foraspecific order thatthelitigation against thedefaulting party bedismissed oranorder requiring
theopposing party totakesome stepwithin adefined period, failing which thelitigation should
automatically bedetermined against it.
Before thesubstantive trialtakesplace, therewillbemany andvaried pre-trial procedures which
theparties mayberequired orchoose toemploy. InEngland andWales (andalsoinNorthern Ireland),
there isfirstaformal exchange ofpleadings which setsouttheallegations made against aparty and
thedefences which theopposing party proposes toraiseagainst these. These pleadings donotsetout
toenumerate thedetailed factswhich willhavetobeestablished iftheallegations aretosucceed at
theeventual trial. Aparty mayatthistimemake admissions which reduces theissues incontention
andtherethenfollows thediscovery ofdocuments which relate tothedetermination ofthose liveissues,
forwhich seeAnswer 3above. When these pre-trial procedures arejudged tobecomplete, thecase
maybe“setdown”fortrial. Usually inIPRenforcement litigation, theparties request afixed date
forthattrialandwhen thistakesplace willdepend ontheestimated length oftrialandtheslotsavailable
inthecourt diary. Before thetrial, itisnowcustomary fortheparties toberequired toexchange
written statements oftheevidence tobepresented atthetrialbyatleastanyexpert witnesses tobe
called, andprobably alsoofwitnesses offactandalsofortheadvocates tosubmit awritten summary
oftheirintended submissions.
These procedures (applicable inEngland, Wales andNorthern Ireland) havebeendesigned
toreduce thelength oftheeventual substantive trialwhich islargely anoralprocedure withexamination,
andcross-examination ofwitnesses whotestify tothecourt onthebasisoftheirpersonal experiences.
Their effectiveness depends greatly upontheattitude adopted bybothparties. Thiswilldepend upon
thecostsandtimewhich aparty mayfeelisnecessary toexpend ifitscaseistobeputbefore thecourt
totheextent thought desirable forsuccess —ofcourse assuming thataparty canafford todoso.Suffice
ittosay,thatmeasures areavailable foraspeedy andrelatively inexpensive resolution ofproceedings,
butlitigating parties often feelthattheirposition willbeprejudiced iftheytakeadvantage ofthem.
Thisisbecause thetaking ofsteps tocurtail expense andlimitthetimetaken willusually beseenas
carrying anunacceptable riskofweakening theparty'scasetoanextent which ought nottobetaken
having regard tothesums ofmoney atstake, andthelikelihood ofaninjunction being granted (or
ofnotbeing granted asthecasemaybe),which might beavoided byafuller presentation ofaparty's
case.
InScotland, theobject ofthesystem ofwritten pleadings istogivenotice tothecourt and
toopponents ofthefactsandpropositions oflawonwhich theparty relies insupport ofhisclaim orIP/N/6/GBR/1
Page11
defence. Thepleadings define theissues andarethebasis upon which procedural questions suchas
theambit ofanycommission ordiligence fortherecovery ofevidence aredetermined. Thepleadings
donotspecify theevidence upon which aparty proposes torelytoestablish thefactsaverred andin
general parties arenotrequired toexchange written statements oftheevidence tobepresented byexpert
orother witnesses. However, since thecourt mayrefuse toaward expenses inrelation toawitness
whose evidence isnotinissue parties areencouraged toconsider andagree whatcanagreed. Such
matters arethenincorporated inajointminute ofadmissions inwhich parties accept forthepurpose
oftheproceedings thefactssetoutintheminute astrue. Inproceedings under thePatents Act1949
and1977thecourt mayatapre-proof hearing order ameeting ofexperts forthepurpose ofproducing
ajointreport onthegeneral stateoftheartororder eachparty tomake available toevery other party
acopyofanyprecognitions, orreports, ofskilled witnesses onanymatter which isnotthesubject
ofajointreport.
Inalltypes ofcases, theemphasis isonallowing adefendant sufficient timeproperly toprepare
andpresent thedefence hewishes toputforward, unless thecourt seesaparticular argument asso
unlikely tobeaccepted bythecourt thatitorders atapre-trial stage thatsuchpleashould beremoved
from theformal defence pleading. Nevertheless, having saidthis,thecourts arefullyaware ofthe
needtomake justice ascheap aspossible andtherulesofcourt forEngland andWales haverecently
been revised, withfurther revisions inprospect, aimed atsimplifying thetrialprocedures inthis
jurisdiction butconsistent withtheoverriding interests ofnatural justice. Itcanbeexpected thatthese
willbefollowed, atleastinNorthern Ireland.
(2) Provide anyavailable dataontheactual duration ofproceedings andtheir cost.
Such dataisnotavailable and,even ifitwere, would bemeaningless. Thisisbecause
proceedings forenforcement ofIPRscanhaveaverywidespectrum ofcomplexity. Adefendant may
seektochallenge eachandevery factalleged against him,oritmaymake admissions limiting thematters
tobedecided toaveryfewpoints which maybematters oflawtobedecided upon astatement of
underlying factsagreed between theparties. Therhetorical question: “Howlongisapiece ofstring? ”
isparticularly apposite here. Asimple casemayoccupy acourt forperhaps onlyhalfaday,whereas
thesubstantive trialofanaction forpatent infringement hasbeenknown tooccupy theEnglish court
forsixmonths.
Ontheonehand, there maybeasimple andblatant caseoftrademark infringement towhich
therecanbenodefence. Suchanaction maybedecided veryquickly uponanapplication forsummary
judgment because noarguable defence isseen. Ifthecourt agrees, judgment canbegiven within a
matter ofweeks fromtheissueofthewrit. However, insuchacase,theprobability isthatthedefendant
willhavevoluntarily submitted tojudgment inorder toavoid thecostsofatrial. Insuchasubmission,
thedefendant canconsent toaninjunction being given against him,andthecourt willnormally make
anyorder which theparties, byconsent, asktobemade, provided onlythatsuchanorder would not
gobeyond thepowers ofthecourt. However, instead ofaformal injunction, thedefendant cangive
avoluntary undertaking tothecourt tocease anddesist fromthealleged infringing activity. Suchan
undertaking —because itisgiven tothecourt—hasthesame effect asaninjunction, though perhaps
notsodamaging tothepublic image ofthedefendant. This, however, doesnotreflect Scottish practise.
Ontheother hand, theenforcement ofanIPRmayinvolve verycomplicated issues ofboth
factandlaw,bothonwhether theIPRhasbeeninfringed andwhether theIPRwasvalidly granted.
Such adispute canoccupy thecourt forseveral weeks ofactual trial, onesuchcasein1979 lasting
sixmonths, withseveral years taken overthepre-trial preparation. Such cases arerare,buttheydo
exist.IP/N/6/GBR/1
Page12
Anyestimate ofcosts canonlybeanecdotal. However, itisunlikely thatacontested case
intheHigh Court could betaken toaconclusion forunder £50,000 (mainly inattorney costs and
expenses), except inaverysimple case. Where thetriallastsmore thanthree weeks, thecosts ofthe
proceedings canbeexpected toexceed £1,000,000 foreachparty, andconsiderably moreifexperiments
areconducted bytheparties forthepurpose ofproviding evidence tobeassessed bythecourt, orthe
caselastslonger than15daysoftrialincourt.
Thecosts oflitigation inEngland andWales (andalsoinNorthern Ireland) areundoubtedly
increased bytheneedtoemploy ateamconsisting ofabarrister (advocate) topresent thecaseorally
before thecourtandasolicitor (toprepare thepleadings andbegenerally responsible forthepreparation
ofthecase). Inanimportant IPRenforcement case(which isusually theposition), itwillbecustomary
toengage bothasenior barrister whoisaQueen 'sCounsel, topresent thecaseincourt, assisted by
ajunior counsel. Also, itwillbeusual inpatent litigation atleastforthelegalteamtobeaugmented
byapatent agent/attorney toassist inthepreparation ofthecasefortrialasregards itstechnological
aspects. Nevertheless, thePatents County Court, instituted in1990asanalternative forum forresolution
ofpatent anddesign litigation, doesprovide ameans whereby acasecanbeconducted (including
appearance incourt) byasingle person whocanbeapatent agent/attorney, asolicitor orabarrister.
Thus, iffinancial means arelimited, acasecanbeconducted inthisforum atreduced cost, though
onlyattheexpense ofreducing thelegaleffectiveness oftheparty'srepresentation which mayperhaps
bebyarelatively inexperienced person whose feeswillbeless.
Inshort, theduration andcosts ofacasearegoverned onlybythetimeandmoney which a
party judges thatitisnecessary ordesirable toexpend inorder tobesuccessful inthelitigation, and
theability tofundthatexpenditure. Thecomplexity ofthecaseistheother major factor.
Inrecent years insurance schemes havebecome available under which arightholder caninsure
against thecostsoflitigation toenforce hisIPR; andalsoforpotential defendants totakeoutinsurance
tofundadefence oflitigation brought against them.
Itmust alsobeadded thatanatural person without financial resources, orhaving onlyvery
limited financial resources, canbegranted “legalaid”whereby litigation forenforcement ofIPRscan
befunded outofcentral funds. Such“legalaid”dependant onfinancial resources iscalculated atthe
commencement ofproceedings. Where alegally aided litigant issuccessful property recovered or
preserved willgofirsttomeethisoutstanding liability tothelegalaidfunded.
(b) Administrative procedures andremedies
9. Reply totheabove questions inrelation toanyadministrative procedures onthemerits
andremedies thatmayresult from these procedures .
Asstated inSection DoftheIntroductory Remarks, theUKPatent Office, through itshead,
theComptroller, hassome judicial powers which forpresent purposes canberegarded asproviding
“administrativeremedies”.LeavingasidethegrantofregisteredIPRs,andthepowerstonullify(revoke)
these (which areassumed tobeoutside oftheterms ofthepresent Checklist directed to“enforcement
ofIPRs”),theonlypower which theComptroller hasrelating tosuchenforcement isaverylimited
oneinrelation topatent infringement, andthenonlyifallparties totheproceedings consent totrial
bytheComptroller. Even then, theComptroller hasnopower toaward aninjunction oranaccount
ofprofits, andcanthusonlyorder thepayment ofdamages andmake adeclaration thatthepatent is
valid andhasbeeninfringed bythedefendant. Moreover, bytradition, theComptroller onlyorders,
asattorney costs, thepayment ofanominal suminproceedings adjudicated byhim. Asaresult of
these limitations, theComptroller hasnotbeenasked toexercise thisjurisdiction forover20yearsIP/N/6/GBR/1
Page13
and, since theprovision wasfirstintroduced in1950, there have been only twosuch cases.
Consequently, intheUK,administrative remedies forIPRs canbeconsidered tobenon-existent as
apractical matter.
Nevertheless,theComptrollerdoeshavepowertoadjudicateuponanapplicationforadeclaration
ofnon-infringement ofapatent. Thisisaconcurrent jurisdiction withthatofthecourts entitled to
hearpatent infringement proceedings andanapplication forsuchadeclaration canbecombined with
anapplication forrevocation ofthepatent. Insuchproceedings foradeclaration ofnon-infringement
(whether brought before theComptroller oracourt), theapplicant hastheonusofproving thathis
article/process doesnotinfringe avalid claim ofthepatent, whereas ininfringement proceedings as
such, itisthepatentee which hastheonusofproof thatthedefendant hascarried outanactofpatent
infringement.
Provisional Measures
(a) Judicial measures
10. Describe thetypes ofprovisional measures thatjudicial authorities mayorder, andthe
legal basis forsuchauthority.
(1) Under theCommon Lawandthestatutes governing thepowers ofthecourts, those
HighCourts andcounty courts (orsimilar inScotland) which havepower toadjudicate
uponenforcement ofIPRscantakeprovisional measures before fulltrialonthemerits
ofacase, including thegrant ofinterim orpreliminary (called “interlocutory ”)
injunctions (inScotland called “interim interdicts ”).
(2) Each oftheUKcourts having jurisdiction overenforcement ofIPRsmayalsogrant
relief ofthetypeknown asanAnton Piller order afterthecaseinwhich thisrelief
wasfirstmade, (inScotland theequivalent being anorder under section 1ofthe
Administration ofjustice (Scotland) Act1972). Under thisorder, thedefendant is
required toadmit toitspremises, asnamed intheorder, persons named intheorder
andsupervised byanindependent solicitor tosearch forandtakeintocustody any
documents andthings ofthetypespecified intheorder inorder topreserve suchas
evidence foratrial. Thedefendant isalsousually enjoined fromactivity likely tobe
aninfringement ofthestated IPRandisrequired tomake anaffidavit disclosing the
source ofthearticles seized under theorder andthedestinations ofsucharticles which
havealready leftthepremises.
(3) Thecourts canalsogrant whatiscalled aMareva injunction, again afterthecasein
which itwasfirstmade. Thisisanorder fortheblocking ofthebankaccounts, and
other assets ofthedefendant pending review ofthese bythecourt. Thistypeofrelief
isnormally made afterjudgment inorder topreserve assets forpayment ofdamages
awarded, butinprinciple itisavailable atanystageofcivilproceedings. TheScottish
equivalent isanarrestment onthedependence, suchanarrestment prevents athird
party holding moveable property forthedefender andfromparting withthatproperty
pending theoutcome ofproceedings. Thedefender isalsoprevented from dealing
withhisinheritable property toapursuers prejudice pending suchoutcome byan
inhibition onthedependence. Arrestment andinhibition onthedependence are
competent where apecuniary remedy issought andareprotective measures tosecure
theeffectiveness ofthatremedy.IP/N/6/GBR/1
Page14
(4) Afurther provisional measure, rarely applied, istheissue ofthewritneexeat regno
(unknown inScotland) .Under this,aparty isforbidden toleave thecountry until
further order ofthecourt. AswiththeMareva injunction, thiswritwillnormally only
beusedwhen itisfeared thatadefendant willleave thejurisdiction ofthecourt before
damages awarded bythecourt havebeenpaid.
(5) Yetafurther provisional measure, isanapplication tothecourt foraninterim award
ofdamages. Toobtain this,theplaintiff mustshow tothecourt thatitishighly likely
thatatfulltrialthecourt willaward substantial damages andthat, pending the
assessment ofthese attrial, itisjustthatthere should beaninterim payment. The
court maymake itacondition ofsuchpayment thatthedefendant willtakesteps to
preserve thesumforreparation (withinterest) should thecourtattrialaward theplaintiff
nodamages, oralesser sumthantheinterim payment. However, asitiscustomary
forIPRenforcement cases toproceed intwostages, firstajudgment onliability and
subsequently anassessment ofdamages, thisprovisional typeofrelief israreinIPR
enforcement cases. InScotland aninterim decree maybeobtained where, forexample,
thepleadings disclose nostateable defence topartofapursuers claim.
11. Inwhat circumstances maysuchmeasures beordered inaudita altera parte?
Incases ofexceptional urgency, acourt (inEngland andWales, andinNorthern Ireland) will
order aninjunction onanexparte basis, thatisinaudita altera parte.However, thiswillonlybedone
when thecourt isoftheopinion thatanimmediate injunction isnecessary because otherwise theplaintiff
islikely tosuffer extreme andirremedial harm. Forexample, suchrelief willbeordered torestrain
athreatened immediate publication ofconfidential information, orwhere anarticle infringing anIPR
isabout tobedisplayed atanexhibition. However, anysuchinjunction isgranted foramatter ofdays
only, thatisitisgranted onlyfortheimmediate protection oftheplaintiff. Theplaintiff must then
return tothecourt atatimewhen thedefendant canalsobepresent andthenseekarenewal ofthe
injunction onthenormal grounds forseeking aninterlocutory injunction asexplained inAnswer 10
above. InthatAnswer, reference wasalsomade toother types ofprovisional relief. These arenormally
made onanexparte basis inorder tosurprise thedefendant andthereby prevent itfromtaking steps
toevade therelief ultimately tobeawarded bythecourt. However, ineachcase, theorder hasonly
limited andtemporary effect untiltheparties canreturn tothecourt forre-assessment oftheposition
onaninterpartes basis.
InScotland, theposition israther different since itisthenorm, rather thantheexception, for
provisional relief (bywayofaninterim interdict) tobeawarded inaudita altera parte,andsuchinterdict
thenremains inforce untilthedefendant takes theinitiative ofapplying tothecourt forthatrelief to
bedischarged. Also, arrestment andinhibition onthedependence arelikewise awarded exparte.
12. Describe themain procedures fortheinitiation, ordering andmaintenance inforce of
provisional measures, inparticular relevant time limits andsafeguards toprotect the
legitimate interests ofthedefendant.
Provisional relief issought atanearlystageinnormal litigation. IntheHighCourt ofEngland
andWales, thisiscommenced byservice ofawritupon eachdefendant, together with(orfollowed
shortly afterwards by)aformal “Statement ofClaim ”.Anapplication foranyprovisional relief is
made by“Notice ofMotion ”tothecourt, accompanied bysupporting evidence intheformofsworn
affidavits. There arenotimelimits forthis,butprovisional relief willberefused ifitisjudged that
theplaintiff hasunduly delayed making application therefor. Inurgent cases, itispermissible toissue
suchnotice ofmotion evenbefore theissue and/or service ofthewritupon giving tothecourt an
undertaking toissue andserve thesame forthwith, andtoserve theaffidavits, asyetunsworn.IP/N/6/GBR/1
Page15
TheNotice ofMotion usually names adateforacourt hearing afewdayslater, buttheinitial
hearing willnormally beonetosetatimetable forthesubmission ofaffidavit evidence inanswer by
thedefendant, withtimeforaffidavit evidence inreply before afullhearing ontheapplication for
provisional relief isheld. Again, theseperiods canbemade quiteshortifthecourt seesthatthematter
should bedecided asamatter ofurgency. Ontheinitial timetable hearing, itiscommon fortheplaintiff
toseekundertakings fromthedefendant nottocontinue withtheactscomplained ofpending thefull
hearing but,ifnosuchundertaking isoffered, theplaintiff hastheopportunity toaskthecourttoimpose
aninterlocutory injunction meanwhile. However, acourt isreluctant todothisexcept inaclearcase
ofIPRinfringement. Thus, adefendant willnormally begiven atimewhich thecourt judges sufficient
toenable himtoshow cause whyitwould notbeappropriate toaward provisional relief against him
before afulltrialonthemerits ofthecase.
Ifthecourtrefuses tograntprovisional relief, itmaynevertheless order thatthefulltrialhearing
should beheldatanearlydatewith, ifnecessary, ashortening ofthenormal timelimits forthepre-trial
procedures, suchasfiling adefence, giving discovery ofrelevant documents andpre-trial exchange
ofstatements inwriting oftheevidence tobepresented atthetrial.
Theprocedure inNorthern Ireland isbroadly similar tothatinEngland andWales. However,
inScotland, interim interdict isusually sought inthewritcommencing theproceedings. Itisfrequently
granted onthebasis oftheaverments ofthepursuer inthatwritandinadvance ofservice onthe
defender. Interim interdict ishowever granted atthediscretion ofthecourt andisdependent on
averments inthewritsufficient toshow titleandinterest tosueandacogent needforinterim interdict.
Inexercising itsdiscretion thecourt willhaveregard tothebalance ofconvenience asbetween the
parties. Where interim interdict hasbeengranted itisopentothedefender toseekrecall atanytime.
Interim interdict may, inthediscretion ofthecourt, begranted orrefused onlyifcaution isfound.
Interim interdict isobtained attheriskofthepursuer andadefender whosuffers lossasaresult of
aninterim interdict wrongfully obtained willbeentitled todamages.
Itisopentoanyperson apprehensive thatinterim interdict maybesought against himtolodge
incourt acaveat. Thismayrelate tointerim interdict proceedings ingeneral ormaybeinrespect
ofsome specific matter. Where acaveat hasbeenlodged nointerim interdict within theterms ofthe
caveat maybepronounced without theperson being given theopportunity tomake representations
tothecourt. Acaveat remains inforce for12months butisrenewable.
Arrestment andinhibition onthedependence arecompetent where apecuniary remedy issought.
Warrant toarrest onthedependence isusually obtained atthecommencement ofproceedings along
withwarrant toserve thewritupon thedefender. Where arrestment iseffected before service ofthe
writthearrestment willfallunless suchservice iseffected within 20daysofthearrestment (42days
inthecaseofactions under £1,500). Warrant toinhibit onthedependence maybegranted onlyby
theCourt ofSession. Inrelation toproceedings inthatcourt itisobtained upon presentation ofthe
writcommencing theproceedings butunlike arrestment onthedependence, itcannot beeffected prior
totheservice ofthewrit. Arrestment andinhibition onthedependence willnormally berecalled on
caution being found butmayberecalled without caution orconsignation where theuseofsuchdiligence
isdisproportionate tothepursuers interest. Theexpenses ofarrestment orinhibition onthedependence
cannot berecovered aspartoftheprocess.
13. (1) Describe theprovisions governing thelength andcostofproceedings.
Under thelawsoftheUnited Kingdom there arenoprovisions which govern thelength or
costs ofproceedings forprovisional measures. Provided thatarequest forprovisional measures is
made promptly, thecourt willthenstipulate atimetable forfurther procedure andahearing willbe
appointed.IP/N/6/GBR/1
Page16
Because provisional relief isnecessarily requested because ofthethreat ofimminent damage
totheinterests oftheplaintiff, thecourt willexpedite thetimetable inanappropriate wayaccording
totheperceived needforimmediate relief. Inaveryurgent case-forexample, asregards athreatened
breach ofcopyright inanewspaper about tobepublished -thecourt willheartherepresentatives of
aplaintiff atveryshort notice, eveninthemiddle ofthenight atthehome ofthe“dutyjudge”.The
appeal courts willlikewise actwithgreat expedition when itisperceived thatthisisnecessary inthe
public interest.
Asindicated inAnswer 8above, thecosts ofproceedings aregoverned onlybythesums of
money which aparty tolitigation isableandchooses tospend onthecase. Asuccessful party can
expect torecover alarge proportion, though notall,ofitsattorney costs anddisbursements (see
Answer 5(2)above, thenormal rulesapplying alsotoapplications forprovisional measures). However,
theusual order forcostsawarded inrespect ofapplications forprovisional relief isthatthese onlytake
effect attheendofthelitigation, thatisafterthefullsubstantive trial, though thecourt canmake an
order for“costs tobetaxed andpaidforthwith ”.
(2) Provide anyavailable dataontheactual duration ofproceedings andtheir cost.
There isnosuchdataavailable. Thisisnotsurprising bearing inmind thewiderange ofIPR
enforcement proceedings which come before thecourt, asdiscussed inAnswer 8(2)above.
(b) Administrative measures
14. Reply totheabove questions [Questions 10to13]inrelation toanyadministrative
provisional measures.
There arenoprovisions inthelawsoftheUnited Kingdom whereby provisional relief can
begiven byanadministrative body, saveasregards “Border Measures ”discussed inAnswers 15-19
below.
Special Requirements Related toBorder Measures
15. (1) Indicate forwhich goods itispossible toapply forthesuspension bythecustoms
authorities oftherelease intofreecirculation, inparticular whether these
procedures areavailable alsoinrespect ofgoods which involve infringements of
intellectual property rights other thancounterfeit trademark orpirated copyright
goods asdefined intheTRIPS Agreement (footnote toArticle 51).
TheCustoms andExcise authorities havegeneral powers toimpound goods entering theUnited
Kingdom (other thanperhaps fromother Member States oftheEuropean Economic Area(EEA)) where
these authorities havereason tobelieve thattheimport ofsuchgoods maycontravene provisions of
thelaw.Most suchactions areconcerned withrestricting theentry intotheUnited Kingdom ofbanned
substances (such asnarcotics, weapons, pornographic material andcertain animals andplants).
Inrelation toinfringement ofIPRs, theonlyspecific provisions areinrespect ofcounterfeit
trademarked andpirated goods. These mainly ariseunder European Council Regulation (EC) No.
3295/94. Under this,“counterfeit goods ”aregoods bearing atrademark which isessentially identical
tothatregistered andwhich hasbeenapplied without authorization fromtherightholder oritslicensees;
and“pirated goods ”areunauthorized copies ofcopyright works, including sound recordings andfilms,
withthisdefinition extending beyond thatinthefootnote toArticle 51oftheTRIPS Agreement byIP/N/6/GBR/1
Page17
including alsounauthorized copies ofdesign rights andofrights inperformances. Inrespect of
counterfeit trademarked goods, these provisions areextended tocover packaging materials, inserts
andthelike,whether ornotpresented separately; and,inrespect ofbothtrademarked andpirated
copyright goods, these provisions areextended tocover moulds andmatrices specifically designed
oradapted forthemanufacture ofsuchgoods.
Besides thepowers under thisEURegulation, which onlycame intoforce on1July1995,
powers under specific statutes oftheUnited Kingdom haveexisted forseveral years under thetrademark
andcopyright statutes (inthelatter caseinrespect ofpublished literary, dramatic andmusical works
andalsoinrespect ofsound recordings andfilms) providing aprocedure whereby atrademark proprietor
oracopyright owner maygivenotice tothecustoms authorities ofanimpending importation ofgoods
(within theabove-specified types) which infringe itsrights asking thatsuchgoods betreated asprohibited
goods andthusbedetained forinspection andthen, ifconfirmed tobeinfringing goods, bedeclared
bythecustoms authorities tobeforfeited. Unless thisdeclaration issuccessfully challenged, thegoods
willeventually bedestroyed bythecustoms authorities. These “domestic provisions ”require the
provision ofinformation astothetimeandplace ofexpected arrival ofinfringing goods andthusnow
havelittlevalue inviewofthewider powers more recently provided under theEURegulation; and,
anyway, havelargely beenrendered ineffective because thedomestic provisions nowonlyapply to
imports falling outside theprovisions oftheEURegulation.
(2) Specify, together withrelevant criteria, anyimports excluded from theapplication
ofsuchprocedures (such asgoods from another member stateofacustoms union,
goods intransit ordeminimis imports). Dotheprocedures apply toimports of
goods putonthemarket inanother country byorwith theconsent ofthe
rightholder andtogoods destined forexportation?
Theprovisions summarized in(1)above donotapply togoods which arealready in“free
circulation ”within theEuropean Union, thatisgoods which haveoriginated within theterritory of
thiscustoms union orhavebeenimported intothisterritory withallcustoms dutyandrelevant import
taxes dulypaid. Ifthisexception doesnotapply, thengoods destined forexportation and“goods in
transit ”areincluded within theprovisions. However, excluded aregoods ofanon-commercial nature
contained inatraveller 'spersonal luggage within thelimitforrelief from customs duty, and(inthe
caseofthedomestic provisions referred toin(1)above) goods intended fortheprivate anddomestic
useoftheperson importing them.
TheEURegulation, however, doesnotapply toimportation ofgoods putonthemarket by
orwiththeconsent oftherightholder, evenifnoconsent hasbeengiven totheirimportation intothe
EUorevenifthegoods havebeenmanufactured contrary totheterms ofalicence fromtherightholder.
However, the“domestic provisions ”donothavethislimitation and,therefore, ifthegoods havecome
from outside theEuropean Union orhavenotbeenentered intofreecirculation within thatUnion,
thenthese domestic provisions doapply totheimport ofgoods putonthemarket inanother (non-EU)
country byorwiththeconsent oftherightholder, though onlyiftherightholder hasmade itclearthat
consent hasnotbeengiven forimportation ofthegoods intotheUnited Kingdom, but,insuchan
instance, itwillprobably bedifficult topersuade thecustoms authorities thatthegoods areinfringing
goods within theterms ofthedomestic provisions.IP/N/6/GBR/1
Page18
16. Provide adescription ofthemain elements oftheprocedures relating tothesuspension
oftherelease ofgoods bycustoms authorities, inparticular thecompetent authorities
(Article 51),therequirements foranapplication (Article 52)andvarious requirements
relating toduration ofsuspension (Article 55).HowhaveArticles 53(security orequivalent
assurance), 56(indemnification oftheimporter andtheowner ofthegoods) and57(right
ofinspection andinformation) been implemented?
Theprovisions ofEuropean Union Council Regulation (EC)No.3295/94 apply automatically
within theUnited Kingdom andarebelieved tocomply withtheobligations ofArticles 51-57ofthe
TRIPS Agreement. Under thisRegulation, application maybemade totheCustoms Authorities (the
Commissioners ofCustoms andExcise) requesting themtodetain goods which theapplicant hasreason
tobelieve willbecounterfeit orpirated goods. Afeeforthisadministrative monitoring service ispayable
which provides forthefirstmonth ofsuchmonitoring, though extension fees,alsoonamonthly basis,
canbepaid. With these fees,theapplicant isrequired toprovide anindemnity topaycompensation
foranyunlawful detention ofthegoods, andthecustoms authorities canrequire security tobegiven
against anyclaim forsuchcompensation. Theapplicant isrequired toprovide proof oftheownership
oftherightasserted and,ifnecessary, anauthorization fromtherightholder toactagainst theimportation
ofcounterfeit orpirated goods. Iftheapplication isfound acceptable, theauthorities willsonotify
theapplicant andcommence amonitoring service fortheperiod requested, though theapplication should
befiledatleast10daysbefore thealleged infringing goods arebelieved tobeimported orexported.
Under theRegulation, thecustoms authorities alsohavepowers todetain, oftheirowninitiative,
goods which theysuspect maybecounterfeit orpirated, evenintheabsence ofanotice being inforce
asmentioned above. When thisisdone, therightholder isnotified, andthenhasthree working days
toinstitute anotice thatthegoods should beregarded ascounterfeit orpirated andshould thusbemade
subject toaforfeiture procedure.
Ifthecustoms authorities dodetain anygoods under either ofthese procedures, theperson
whofiledtheapplication isinformed andthegoods aredetained (ortheirfreecirculation suspended)
for10working days, during which boththerightholder andtheimporter areentitled toinspect the
goods. Ifwithin thattimetherightholder, orsomeone authorized toactonhisbehalf, takes steps to
show thatthese detained goods areinfactcounterfeit orpirated, thecustoms authorities declare the
goods tobeforfeited. Ifthisforfeiture decision ischallenged, thecustoms authorities arerequired
tocommence condemnation proceedings before acourt, andthese areattheexpense oftheapplicant
seeking thatforfeiture. Ifthecondemnation proceedings fail,thegoods arereleased intofreecirculation.
Iftheysucceed, thegoods arethendestroyed. Re-export isnotpermitted. Ifthegoods areshown
nottobecounterfeit orpirated, therightholder willbesubject toaclaim bytheimporter fordamages
fortheunlawful detention ofthegoods. Theabove-mentioned indemnity takes effect inrespect of
anysuchclaim aswellasforthecosts ofthecondemnation proceedings.
17. (1) Describe provisions governing thelength andcostofproceedings. Provide any
available dataontheactual duration ofproceedings andtheir cost.
The“domestic provisions ”referred toinAnswer 16above havebeenonlyusedonrelatively
fewoccasions, probably because oftheneedtogivenotice ofthetimeandlocation oftheexpected
arrival oftheunauthorized trademarked orcopyright infringing goods. EURegulation No.3295/94
onlycame intoforce on1July1995 andsothere hasbeen asyetinsufficient timetogauge the
effectiveness ofitsprovisions. However, itisunderstood thattheapplication procedure iscurrently
being usedtoasignificant extent.IP/N/6/GBR/1
Page19
(2) Howlongisthevalidity ofdecisions bythecompetent authorities forthesuspension
oftherelease ofgoods intofreecirculation?
Upon detention ofgoods pursuant toaapplication formonitoring, 10working daysareallowed
forinspection ofthegoods andprovision ofawritten opinion astothecounterfeit orpirated nature
ofthedetained goods; thisperiod canbeextended byafurther 10working days. Inthecaseofthe
customs authorities detaining goods oftheir owninitiative, aperiod of3daysisallowed foran
application tobemade by,oronbehalf of,therightholder forthedetention ofthese goods. The10
dayperiods thencommence. Attheendoftheperiods allowed, andontheconclusion ofanyproceedings
commenced during suchperiod, thegoods areeither released ordeclared forfeited, andmaythenbe
made subject tocondemnation proceedings asexplained inAnswer 16above.
18. (1) Arecompetent authorities required toactupon their owninitiative and,ifso,in
what circumstances?
Thecustoms authorities arenot“required ”toactupon theirowninitiative, but(asexplained
inAnswer 16above) theyhavethepower sotodo.Thiswillbedonewhen theauthorities themselves
suspect thatcertain goods areeither counterfeit orpirated.
(2) Arethere anyspecial provisions applicable toexofficio action?
Yes,asexplained inAnswer 16above, when theauthorities takeaction exofficio ,notice is
given totherightholder andthegoods willbereleased ifanapplication fordetention isnotmade within
3working daysthereafter.
19. Describe theremedies thatthecompetent authorities havetheauthority toorder andany
criteria regulating their use.
SeeAnswer 16.
Criminal Procedures
20. Specify thecourts which have jurisdiction overcriminal actsofinfringement ofIPRs.
IntheUnited Kingdom, criminal law(inEngland andWales, andalsoinNorthern Ireland)
isenforced through asystem ofjurytrialinCrown Courts (forthemore serious offences) andbya
system ofsummary jurisdiction inMagistrates 'Courts (foroffences ofaminor nature), withsome
offences being “triable either way”,thatisineither courtaccording tothewishes firstoftheprosecutor,
andthenoftheaccused whocanelecttobetriedinahigher court thanthatchosen bytheprosecutor.
Aright ofappeal exists totheCrown Court from adecision ofaMagistrates 'Court, andfrom the
Crown Court toaCourt ofCriminal Appeal, withapossibility ofafinalappeal totheHouse ofLords.
InScotland, there isasystem ofjurytrialintheHigh Court andSheriff Court andsummary
trials intheSheriff Court andDistrict Court. Inthecaseofoffences “triable either way”itisforthe
prosecutor todecide whether trialshould bebefore ajuryorinasummary court. Arightofappeal
exists from allcourts totheappeal court. There isnofinalappeal totheHouse ofLords.
However, intheUnited Kingdom, criminal lawplays onlyaminor roleintheenforcement
ofIPRs, although anincreasing oneincases ofcounterfeit goods (regarded ascriminal infringement
oftrademarks) andofpirated goods (regarded ascriminal infringement ofcopyrights, performance
rights anddesign rights).IP/N/6/GBR/1
Page20
InEngland andWales, theoffences oftrademark andcopyright infringement (asdefined in
Answer 21below) maybetriedeither bysummary jurisdiction inaMagistrates 'Court orbyajury
trialbefore aCrown Court. Theposition inNorthern Ireland issimilar. InScotland, theoffences of
trademark andcopyright infringements maybetriedeither summarily oronindictment before ajury.
21. Inrespect ofwhich infringements ofwhich intellectual property rights arecriminal
procedures andpenalties available?
There isnoprovision forinfringements ofpatents orregistered designs tobetreated ascriminal
offences. Likewise, actions forbreach ofconfidence (misuse oftrade secrets) orforinfringement of
rights arising fromunregistered trademarks arepurely civilmatters, notpunishable ascriminal offences.
Anoffence oftrademark infringement iscommitted under section 92oftheTrade Marks Act
1994. Thedetailed provisions ofthisenactment canbesummarized asapplying when there hasbeen
unauthorized useofaregistered trademark (orofamark likely tobemistaken forsuchamark) by
wayofapplication ofsuchmarktogoods ortotheirpackaging, orbythesale,offerforsale,distribution
orother disposal ofgoods bearing suchmark, orwhere aperson haspossession, custody orcontrol
ofsuchgoods, orwhere suchmark isapplied tolabelling orpackaging ofgoods, orusedinabusiness
paper orinadvertising inrelation togoods, provided ineachcasethattheaction hasbeentaken “with
aviewtogainforhimself oranother, orwithintent tocause losstoanother ”and,anyway, without
theconsent oftheproprietor. These offences arealsoextended topossession, custody orcontrol of
material foruseinlabelling, packaging oradvertising goods bearing suchamark; andtothemaking,
possession, custody orcontrol ofarticles specifically designed oradapted formaking copies ofsuch
amark, provided ineachsuchcasethattheactivity hasbeen“inthecourse ofabusiness ”.However,
nooffence iscommitted under these summarized provisions unless thegoods inquestion aregoods
forwhich themark isregistered orunless thetrademark hassuchareputation intheUnited Kingdom
thatitsunauthorized usewould takeunfair advantage of,orbedetrimental to,thedistinctive character
ortherepute ofthetrademark; andalsowhere thedefendant isabletoshow thathebelieved on
reasonable grounds thathisactions didnotinvolve a(civil) infringement ofthetrademark registration.
Itisalsoacriminal offence tousetheRoyal Arms ortheOlympic Symbol without authorization.
Anoffence ofinfringement ofcopyright (orofarightinapublic performance) iscommitted
under theprovisions ofsection 107(orsection 198)oftheCopyright, Designs andPatents Act1988.
Under these provisions, acriminal offence canbesummarized ascommitted under generally thesame
circumstances aswhen anactofcopyright becomes actionable asacivilmatter, provided thearticle
ofwhich complaint isonewhich thedefendant “knows orhasreason tobelieve isaninfringing copy
ofacopyright work”(orofaperformance right). Also, withsuchadegree ofknowledge, itisan
offence tomake orhaveinpossession anarticle specifically designed oradapted tomaking copies
ofaparticular copyright work; ortoperform, playorshow inpublic aliterary, dramatic ormusical
work, asound recording orafilm.
22. Which public authorities areresponsible forinitiating criminal proceedings? Arethey
required todothisontheir owninitiative and/or inresponse tocomplaints?
Inthecaseoftrademark infringements classified ascriminal offences (forwhich seeAnswer
21above), every “localweights andmeasures authority ”inEngland andWales (andtheDepartment
ofEconomic Development inNorthern Ireland) hasadutytoenforce these provisions. However, this
dutydoesnotpreclude aprivate prosecution forthese offences (seeAnswer 23below).
Thereference above toa“duty”implies thatsuchauthorities should actontheirowninitiative.
However, normally theywillonlydosofollowing themaking ofacomplaint orfollowing theprovisionIP/N/6/GBR/1
Page21
ofinformation indicating thecommission ofanoffence under thecriminal legalprovisions summarized
inAnswer 21.
InScotland, asinEngland andWales, itisthedutyofevery “local weights andmeasures
authority ”toenforce theoffences oftrademark andcopyright infringement. However, theseauthorities
(i.e.councils constituted under section 2oftheLocal Government etc.(Scotland) Act1994) donot
havearighttoprosecute. Allinfringements would bereported bythelocal authority tothepublic
prosecutor whohasadiscretion astowhether toinitiate criminal proceedings. Anyindividual may
draw aninfringement totheattention ofthelocalauthority ortheprosecutor.
23. Doprivate persons have standing toinitiate criminal proceedings and,ifso,who?
Yes,aprosecution canbebrought byanyperson orbodyhaving asufficient personal orpublic
reason forseeking enforcement ofthecriminal law. However, inScotland private prosecution isso
wholly exceptional astorepresent nomore thanatheoretical possibility onthepartofanindividual
whohassuffered lossinrespect oftrademark orcopyright infringement.
24. Specify, bycategory ofIPRandtypeofinfringement where necessary, thepenalties and
other remedies thatmaybeimposed:
(1) imprisonment;
Foroffences triedbysummary proceedings, themaximum termofimprisonment issixmonths
fortrademark andcopyright (including performance right) infringements, butunauthorized useofeither
theRoyal Arms, ortheOlympic Symbol, isnotpunishable byimprisonment. Foroffences triedby
juryinaCrown Court, orsimilar, anunlimited finemaybeimposed forinfringements oftrademarks
(including unauthorized useoftheOlympic Symbol) orcopyrights (including performance rights),
butunauthorized useoftheRoyal Arms istriable onlybysummary procedure. Ifthese imprisonable
offences aretriedbefore aCrown Court (orsimilar), themaximum period ofimprisonment istenyears
foratrademark infringement butonlytwoyears foracopyright (orperformance right) infringement.
(2) monetary fines;
Fortheseoffences triedbysummary proceedings, themaximum fineiscurrently £5,000, except
inacaseofunauthorized useoftheRoyal Arms where themaximum fineis£500.
(3) seizure,forfeitureanddestructionofinfringinggoodsandmaterialsandimplements
fortheir production;
Where aproprietor ofaregistered trademark, ortheowner ofacopyright, performance right
ordesign right, finds orbelieves thataperson hasaninfringing article “inhispossession, custody
orcontrol inthecourse ofabusiness ”,oranarticle specifically designed oradapted formaking such
anarticle, hemayapply toacourt (including forthispurpose aMagistrates 'Court, orsimilar) for
anorder thattheinfringing article bedelivered uptohimortosuchother person asthecourt may
direct. Also, where suchproprietor orowner findssucharticles “exposed orotherwise immediately
available forsaleorhire”those articles maybeseized bysuchaperson orbysomeone authorized
byhimprovided thatprior notice ofsuchintended seizure hasbeengiven toalocal police station.
These powers mayonlybeexercised within sixyears ofthearticles inquestion having beenmade,
unless therightholder hasbeenunder adisability orhasbeenprevented byfraud orconcealment from
discovering therelevant facts.IP/N/6/GBR/1
Page22
After suchdelivery uporseizure, anapplication maybemade toacourt (being theHighCourt
oracounty court, or(inScotland) theCourt ofSession orasheriff court) thatthegoods detained or
seized should beforfeited totherightholder, orbedestroyed orotherwise dealtwithasthecourt may
think fit,orthatnosuchorder should bemade. Ifnosuchorder ismade, theperson from whom
thegoods were taken isentitled totheirreturn.
(4) other.
Inthecaseofinfringements ofcopyright orperformance right (butnotofdesign right or
trademark), where areasonable belief canbeshown thatanoffence has,orisabout tobe,committed,
application maybemade toalocalmagistrate (sheriff orjustice ofthepeace inScotland) forasearch
warrant authorizing apolice officer toenterandsearch premises (which termextends toland,buildings,
moveable structures, vehicles, vessels andaircraft). Upon theexecution ofsuchasearch warrant,
thepolice officer maytakeintocustody anyevidence found ofthecommission (orplanned commission)
ofanysuchoffence. Thewarrant remains inforcefor28daysandmayauthorize persons toaccompany
thepolice officer.
Thesame penalties apply tooffences committed inScotland orNorthern Ireland andlikewise
these offences arethere triable either byasummary procedure (with more limited penalties) orby
ajurytrialinahigher court.
25. Describeprovisionsgoverningthelengthandanycostofproceedings.Provideanyavailable
dataontheactual duration ofproceedings andtheir cost, ifany.
There arenoprovisions governing thelength orcostofproceedings. However, thecriminal
courts havepower toaward adefendant topaycoststotheprosecutor, andadefendant whoisacquitted
oftheoffence withwhich heischarged, may(atthediscretion ofthecourt) beawarded itscosts to
bepaidoutofpublic funds. Itisnotthecustom toaward suchcostswhere theconduct ofthedefendant
hasbeensuchastomake itreasonable forproceedings tobebrought against him. InScotland, there
isnopower toaward expenses either infavour oforagainst thepublic prosecutor oranaccused person.
Legal aidisavailable todefend criminal proceedings onindictment where thecourt considers
thattheexpenses ofthecasecannot bemetwithout duehardship totheaccused orhisdependents.
Itisavailable insummary proceedings where thelegalaidauthority issatisfied notonlythattheexpenses
ofthecasecannot bemetwithout undue hardship totheaccused orhisdependents butalsothatitis
intheinterests ofjustice thatlegal aidbemade available. Criminal legal aidismade available in
Scotland without afinancial contribution from theaccused person.
Nodataisavailable ontheactual duration ofproceedings andtheircost. However, itisto
benoted thatapplications ofthecourt referred toinAnswer 24(3) maybemade toaMagistrates 'Court
(orsimilar) andthiscanbedonebyasolicitor acting alone andwithminimal expenditure. Ofcourse,
iftheproceedings arecontested, costs canmount; andthere isthepossibility ofappeals tooneor
more higher courts.