We use cookies to improve our site and your experience. By continuing to browse on this website you accept the use of cookies. Read more...

Dr Tim Sampson

  • Intellectual property, media & entertainment  

    Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment

    Tim has been instructed in IPR cases before the Chancery Division of the High Court, the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court (IPEC), as well as representing clients before the UK Trade Mark Office, the EUIPO and CJEU, as well as the European Patent Office. Tim also lectured in IP law on Cambridge University’s Masters in Bioscience Enterprise MPhil course for 5 years between 2003 and 2007. 

    Recent and Reported Cases

    Trade Marks

    Grenade (UK) Ltd v Grenade Energy Ltd & Anr [2016] EWHC 877 (IPEC) – represented the Defendants at the Claimant’s application for summary judgment for passing off & trade mark infringement

    “ISLAM CHANNEL” – acted for the applicant in respect of the UK Trade Mark Office’s refusal, under s.3(1)(b) and (c) of the TM Act, to grant a trade mark for Islam Channel (UK 00003119213 – (2016))

    Sun Mark Ltd and Bulldog Energy Drink Ltd v Red Bull GmbH – (Case C-206/15 P: 2015) -represented the applicants in their application for permission to appeal to the CJEU in circumstances where the applicants had not taken part in proceedings before the General Court in respect of trade mark Opposition proceedings that has be resisted to that point in time by OHIM.

    “PHYSIO SOLUTIONS / PHYSIOTHERAPY SOLUTIONS” – acted for the Opponent in its Opposition to the registration of “Physiotherapy Solutions”- OP 401540 - and the counterclaim for revocation - CA 500535 (2015)

    “SAVE AN ORPHAN” (UK Trade Mark Opposition No.: 2628031 (2013)) – represented the Opponent in opposition proceedings in respect of the Save an Orphan trade mark.

    Weight Watchers Ltd & Others v Love Bites & Others [2012] EWPCC 11, [2012] E.T.M.R. 27: represented the Defendants in respect of allegations of trade mark infringement where the PCC (now the IPEC) exercised its power to give a preliminary non-binding judgment in a trade mark case for the first time.

    Sun Mark v Red Bull – 2011 – instructed by Sun Mark on three related cases in involving Sun Marks’ trade mark disputes with Red Bull GmBH. (a) judicial review proceedings brought against the UKIPO and Red Bull as an interested party alleging that the UKIPO had improperly granted trade marks to Red Bull that had been applied for in bad faith bad faith (led by Aidan Robertson QC) (b) Drafting amended grounds of appeal and appeal skeleton in respect of the ruling of Arnold J. in Claim No. HC10 CO173 finding Sun Mark had infringed certain Red Bull trade marks (led by John Baldwin QC) and (c) trade mark office proceedings for the revocation of two Red Bull trade marks (No. 790389 & 824548) – all three claims were eventually compromised.

    Shafi and Others t/a Chiswick Cars v. Khan and Others t/a New Chiswick Cars 2007 H.C. – claim for passing off in respect of minicab services the Defendants settled immediately prior to the hearing.

    Database Rights

    Executive Grapevine International Limited v Wall & Others [2012] EWHC 4152 (Ch); – Chancery Division of the High Court before Norris J.: represented the Claimant in its claim for infringement of database rights by an ex-employee who had stolen copies of the company’s marketing databases and sold them via e-Bay.

    Data Protection

    Raminder Ranger v House of Lords Appointments Commission [2015] EWHC 45 (QB); [2015] 1 WLR 4324 – representing Dr Ranger in his Part 8 claim against HOLAC for access under the Data Protection Act for access to letters held by the Commission that allegedly contained information pertaining to his application for membership of the House of Lords.

    Patents

    European Patent Office

    Opposition to EP 1 021 120 B1 by HOOVER Ltd. (GB). – Acting for the opponent in oral opposition proceedings at the EPO in Munich.

    Opposition to EP 1 161 405 by BIAGRO Inc. / Opposition to EP 743931 by MANDOPS (UK) Ltd. – joined cases heard before the EPO.

    Design Rights / Registered Designs and Copyrights

    Hyams v Cooling (High Court Chancery Division – Claim No.: HC CO2434 in 2009) – advising the Claimant in respect of settling injunctive proceedings arising out of claims over the copyrights in certain works and photographs.

    Acoustic Building Supplies Ltd. v. Durabella Acoustics 2006 - advising the Defendant on design right infringement proceedings in respect of sound proof floor tiles.

    Red Girl Records v. Richard Murdoch advising Defendant on possible infringement issues in respect of distribution and sale of “free” promotional records.

    News & Resources

    CJEU disallows European trademark registration for puzzle cube

    On the 10th November 2016 the CJEU held that a European trade mark for the three-dimensional representation of a puzzle (essentially a Rubik’s cube) could not continue to be registered as an EU trade mark as it offended against Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of the Trade Mark Regulation 40/94.

    14th November 2016 Read more

    IPR Updates – July 2015: HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Co. Ltd. v ZTE Corp. (Case C-170-13) CJEU 16 July 2015

    The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down an important decision on the 16 July 2015 dealing with the thorny issue of the balance to be struck between the rights of patent proprietors of patents that have become part of a European standard and the rights of third-parties who have not concluded an agreement with that patent holder for the use the protected technology – but have used it in any event to comply with the requirements of the EU standard.

    1st July 2015 Read more

    Starbucks (HK) Ltd. v British Sky Broadcasting Group and Other (No.2) [2015] UKSC 31

    The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Starbucks (HK) v BSB has upheld the longstanding principle that to bring an action in passing off the Claimant must have more than a reputation in the UK - it must have actual paying customers and that the application of this principle is not altered by the fact that the service in question is one that is known to individuals living in the UK.

    1st June 2015 Read more
  • Property  

    Property

    The Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster v Patton (Claim No.: 9CL 08189 before HHJ Collins QC sitting at the CLCC) – representing the defendant in a claim for possession of a flat held under a secure tenancy based a breach of covenant and / or breach of Sch. 2 Grounds 1 & 2 of the Housing Act 1985 based upon his alleged drunken, aggressive and homophobic conduct towards other tenants.

    The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Camden v Pink (Claim No. 9CL 07458 – before HHJ Walden-Smith (2010)) – representing the Defendant in respect of Claim for possession of a property occupied under a secure tenancy based upon rent arrears and that he no longer used the Property as his primary dwelling contrary to s.81 of the 1985 Act and alleged sub-letting of the Property by the Defendant in breach of the terms of his lease and contrary to section 93 of the 1985 Act.

    Falconwood Estates v Lebovic (Claim No.: 2BR0062 – before Recorder Venter QC (2012)) – representing the Claimant in a claim for possession of a property, where the tenant’s rights to alternative accommodation were governed by the Rent Act 1957.

    Boundary Disputes:

    Bryant v Macklin [2005] EWCA Civ 762CA representing the respondent in respect of an appeal as to the correct measure of damages to be applied in respect of trespass damages.

    Pengelly v Bedgood (before Recorder Martineau in the Torquay & Newton Abbot CC – 2012 representing the Claimants in their claim for trespass damages and an injunction in respect of earth piled up against a retaining wall.

    Newson v Dinenage (before HHJ Simpkiss QC – sitting at the Brighton County Court 2013 / 14) successfully representing the Defendants in a dispute over their alleged right to rectify the terms of a Tomlin Order settling a boundary dispute to which they were not an original party and then to determine the correct boundary line for the purposes of the rectified Schedule to the Tomlin Order.

     

  • Environmental Regulation / GMO and Biotech Regulation  

    Environmental Regulation / GMO and Biotech Regulation

    Broxbourne Council v Dichiara (before the Hertford Magistrates Court – 2005) representing the Defendant in a successful challenge to a s.215 Notice issued under the Town and County Planning Act 1990.

    Environment Agency v. Riverfield Fishfarms 2007 (lead by Stephen Hockman QC) representing the Defendant in a dispute as to the meaning and enforceability of a Section 30 licence issued under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 to allow the introduction of albino carp into an inland waterway.

    Environment Agency v Fadel & Fadel (Manchester Magistrates Court – 2011) advising the Defendants in respect of a prosecution under Regulations 12 and 41(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting Regulation (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 arising out of an allegation that the Defendants were operating an illegal car salvage works.

    Wellingborough BC v Poojas Caterers & Others (before the Wellingborough Magistrates Court – 2011) – representing the Defendants at a sentencing hearing following admissions of serious breaches of food hygiene regulations that could have justified a period of imprisonment.

    News & Resources

    CJEU Clarifies Law on Form Shifting and the Exhaustion of Distribution Rights in the EU – Arts & Allposters (Case C-419/13)

    On the 22 January 2015 the CJEU delivered its judgment in Arts & Allposters International BV v StichtingPicoright, a decision that directly addresses the question the limits of copyright protection afforded to copyright works first marketed in the EU that have subsequently been the subject of an unauthorised shift in its physical form prior to onward sale in the EU.

    1st July 2015 Read more
  • Commercial  

    Commercial

    General Commercial Litigation:

    Brown & Brown v Royal Bank of Scotland (Claim No.HQ14X01249) – instructed by the Claimants in respect of a multi-million pound claim for damages against the bank in respect of an alleged breach of contract to provide a commercial purchase and redevelopment loan. At first instance successfully resisting an application for Summary Judgment brought by RBS and then negotiated a settlement at the outset of the 5 day trial listed in the QB Division;

    Bank Mellat v. Sec. of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (CO / 1733 / 2014) – instructed by Bank Mellat (led by Aidan Robertson QC) in respect of an application for Judicial Review of the Bank’s claim that the FCO is acting contrary to the rule of law in not complying with the substance of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Bank Mellat (No.2) 2013.

    Vincent Tchengiuz v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (2013 / 2014) – instructed to work with the disclosure team (using the EPIC system)in relation to the JR proceedings brought by Mr Tchenguiz against the SFO.

    Euro Palace v British Gas Business Services Limited (before Simon J. High Court QB Division 2011) – representing the Applicant at a hearing for an emergency injunction to restore power to it supermarket which had been disconnected causing the shop’s refrigeration systems to shut down.

    McClean v Mangat & Walia – Petition No.: 8130 of 2003 (High Court – Companies Court (2011 hearing)) before Mr Nicholas Strauss QC sitting as a deputy judge of the HC: representing the Claimant in a two day trial in respect of his allegation of “unfairly prejudicial conduct” (s.459 of the ) Companies Act) based upon revenue stripping by the two respondent directors and then to determine the appropriate valuation of his 25% shareholding.

    Haddad v The University of Bradford (before HHJ Spencer QC – sitting at the Bradford CC 2010) representing the Claimant in his claim that the course content, supervision and facilities provided by the Defendant during the course of his PhD studentship failed to meet the requirements of his funding body (in effect the Iranian Government) and this amounted to a breach of contract – the claim was rejected and the Court of Appeal refused permission to Appeal.

    Construction Industry Disputes:

    Brown & Brown v Complete Building Solutions Ltd. [2016] EWCA Civ 1; [2016] B.L.R. 98; [2016] 164 Con. L.R. 21 – representing the Appellants in an appeal against a summary judgment entered in respect of an adjudicator’s award under the HGCRA 1996 and Scheme for Construction Contracts. The Appellants having refused to meet the judgment sum as the adjudicator’s decision was – in their view – made in respect of a dispute that was the same or substantially the same as one previously unsuccessfully pursued by the respondent in an earlier adjudication – and was therefore barred under the terms of paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme.

    Cuddy v Andrew t/a Paul Andrew Builders (before Recorder Waksman – sitting at the Central London CC (TCC) 2006) representing the Defendant in a three-day trial in respect of a claim alleging unfinished and / or defective works and his counterclaim for money owed for variations t the works in circumstances where the Defendant had filed no pleadings prior to trial.

    Insolvency:

    Andrew Pinnell v Asad Ali Meerza (High Court Chancery Div. Case No. 936 of 2010) drafting the grounds of appeal and appeal skeleton in respect of an appeal from Registrar Baister giving the Respondents the unfettered permission under s.285 of the Insolvency Act to continue proceedings against the Appellant.

    In the matter of HH&P Thirty Eight Limited (Petition No. 1452 of 2011 – before Registrar Nicholls Chancery Div. (Companies Court) representing the Petitioner at an application brought under ss. 98 and 166 of the Insolvency Act 1986;

    Re Dorset House (Claim Lon / OOBK / LSC/2011/0620 and LAM / 2011 / 0019) before the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal 2011 / 2012; instructed on behalf of the liquidators of the freehold company (as junior counsel) who were seeking to recover circa £2.5 million in service charge arrears to discharge debts to the construction company who had installed a new hearting / water system into the block of over 100 flats.

    News & Resources

     

  • Publications  

    Publications

    University Course content - A Contractual Right or a Matter of Academic Judgement? Ed. Law Journal 2011

    Strategic Legal Thinking For IPR Dependant Enterprise - The ‘Five Rings’ Method: EIPR – July 2009

    The “Adjusted Future Free Income Ratio” – A New Methodology for Determining IPR Royalty Rates? : EIPR – September 2007

    Transboundary Movement of Genetically Modified Organisms (EC) 1946/2003: A Review: Bio-Science Law Review 2005/2006 Vol. 8

    The Regulation of Genetically Modified Food and Feed in the Community: Bio-Science Law Review 2004/2005 Vol. 7

    Would you know your GMO? Bio-Science Law Review 2004/2005

    GMO Regulation in Europe - A Prima for Patent Applicants: Bio-science Law Review 2003/2004 Vol.  4

    Madey, Integra and the Wealth of Nations: EIPR January 2004

    Achieving Ethically Acceptable Biotechnology Patents: A Lesson from the Clinical Trials Directive?: EIPR September 2003

    Aptamers and SELEX - Part 2 Protecting IP Rights: in World Patent Information, December 2003

    Aptamers and SELEX - Part 1 The Technology; in World Patent Information, June 2003

    Environmental Risk Assessments of GMOs Under Directive 2001/18: An Effective Safety-net or a “Collective Illusion”: EIPR February 2003

    Rewriting the Genetic Code: The Impact of Novel Nucleotides on Biotechnology Patents: EIPR August 2002

    Commercial Prejudice After Dyson v. Hoover: CIPA Journal April 2002

Profile

Tim’s practice covers all aspects of UK and European intellectual property law, as well as more general Chancery and commercial litigation, and property matters; in particular in relation to cases with highly technical and expert evidence.

Tim also advises on and drafts commercial contracts, franchising agreements, and software licensing agreements as well as being familiar with large scale disclosure exercises using systems such as EPIC and Relativity.

Select from Areas of Expertise for further details.

Further information

Other publications

  • IPR Updates – July 2015
  • Starbucks (HK) Ltd. v British Sky Broadcasting Group and Other (No.2) [2015] UKSC 31
  • CJEU Clarifies Law on Form Shifting and the Exhaustion of Distribution Rights in the EU – Arts & Allposters (Case C-419/13)

Qualifications

  • Durham University – Bsc (Hons) Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
  • University of Cambridge PhD in Biochemistry

Languages

  • Basic Spanish

Memberships

  • Called to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn (March 2000)
  • Associate Member of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents
  • Chancery Bar Association
  • Fellow of the Cambridge Philosophical Society

Interests

Climbing, skiing and classical music

News & Resources

CJEU disallows European trademark registration for puzzle cube

On the 10th November 2016 the CJEU held that a European trade mark for the three-dimensional representation of a puzzle (essentially a Rubik’s cube) could not continue to be registered as an EU trade mark as it offended against Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of the Trade Mark Regulation 40/94.

14th November 2016 Read more

CJEU Clarifies Law on Form Shifting and the Exhaustion of Distribution Rights in the EU – Arts & Allposters (Case C-419/13)

On the 22 January 2015 the CJEU delivered its judgment in Arts & Allposters International BV v StichtingPicoright, a decision that directly addresses the question the limits of copyright protection afforded to copyright works first marketed in the EU that have subsequently been the subject of an unauthorised shift in its physical form prior to onward sale in the EU.

1st July 2015 Read more

IPR Updates – July 2015: HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Co. Ltd. v ZTE Corp. (Case C-170-13) CJEU 16 July 2015

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down an important decision on the 16 July 2015 dealing with the thorny issue of the balance to be struck between the rights of patent proprietors of patents that have become part of a European standard and the rights of third-parties who have not concluded an agreement with that patent holder for the use the protected technology – but have used it in any event to comply with the requirements of the EU standard.

1st July 2015 Read more

Starbucks (HK) Ltd. v British Sky Broadcasting Group and Other (No.2) [2015] UKSC 31

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Starbucks (HK) v BSB has upheld the longstanding principle that to bring an action in passing off the Claimant must have more than a reputation in the UK - it must have actual paying customers and that the application of this principle is not altered by the fact that the service in question is one that is known to individuals living in the UK.

1st June 2015 Read more
Dr Tim Sampson


View all Areas of expertise

Year of Call 2000

Email

timsampson@lambchambers.co.uk

Contact clerk

Philip Alden

020 7797 8301

VAT Reg No

815213658

For Public Access

find a barrister

For Solicitors & Professionals

instruct a barrister