Waterfront’s Matthew Harris is the subject of The Law Society Gazette’s My Legal Life feature.
Matthew told the Gazette about all aspects of his career, from his “eye-opening’’ placement at a firm of solicitors in Bath through to his current position as Waterfront’s joint head of intellectual property and dispute resolution
The resulting article details the reasons why Matthew decided on a career in law and his first steps in that direction. It covers his period as a student and his reasons for deciding against becoming a barrister.
The piece also outlines how Matthew came to do litigation work in Hong Kong before qualifying in a firm’s intellectual property department. Matthew explains his work on the Law Society’s Intellectual Property Law Committee, including his liaising with the Law Commission and giving oral evidence to the House of Lords as his contribution to the drafting of what became the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017. He also emphasises the importance of the Act.
The Gazette also notes the 20 years-plus he has spent with the World Intellectual Property Organisation and his involvement with the Czech Arbitration Court and Nominet panels for domain name disputes.
You can read the full feature by visiting The Law Society Gazette website.
On 20th January 2025, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Thatchers Cider Company Limited (“Thatchers”) in a landmark trade mark infringement case against the discount supermarket chain, Aldi Stores Limited (“Aldi”). This decision overturned the earlier ruling by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (“IPEC”) and has…
As we begin 2025, the emergence and growth of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) shows no signs of slowing down. Many believe that AI has already outpaced the current legal and regulatory frameworks in the UK. This has led to businesses lacking the certainty and confidence they need to embrace…
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…