We’re very pleased to be recognised as a leading technology law firm in one of the UK’s top legal directories, the Legal 500, once again.
The Legal 500 – which sets the benchmark for quality across the UK legal market – said that we have ‘an excellent market understanding’ and are ‘a very well-run boutique’. And who are we to disagree? The Legal 500 goes through a rigorous process of research with clients and legal experts to create their rankings of the most cutting edge and leading legal firms.
Waterfront has been ranked in both the IT and telecoms and intellectual property categories and four of our partners received positive and personal mentions. The commercial contracts team was cited for its particular expertise in outsourcings, contracts, disputes and digital media, as well as its work for suppliers in the financial sector.
The Legal 500 focuses on the strength of Waterfront’s team of IP solicitors, identifying both partners, Piers Strickland and Matthew Harris as recommended litigators. The intellectual property team’s recent working advising Kenwood on contentious trade mark matters and acting for Shark AG in proceedings against Monster Energy and Coca-Cola was also highlighted.
Founding partner, Carole Hailey said, “We’re particularly proud that the Legal 500 has recognised our excellent understanding of the technology market, as this is something which our clients value and in which we aim to excel. The Legal 500 is a reliable barometer of quality in the legal industry, so to be included year after year is a very positive sign.”
The current legal framework in the UK does not allow copying of copyright-protected material for training generative AI models, except where it is carried out with permission of the copyright owner or done in a research or study context and for purely non-commercial purposes.
This matter deals with the Claimant’s (‘TVIS’) allegation of infringement and misrepresentation in relation to its “VETSURE” trade mark by the Defendant (‘Howserv’s’) “PETSURE” trade mark, used for pet insurance. In the first instance decision, the claim was dismissed due to the marks being highly descriptive and “not…