Waterfront is delighted to announce that it has been recognised once again this year in the World Trademark review annual rankings. The team is characterised as fast becoming one of the London’s premier sources of high-quality specialist IP advice, and partners Matthew Harris and Piers Strickland both receive glowing recommendations. Matthew Harris and Piers Strickland are also separately named as recommended individuals for IP enforcement and litigation.
The full review of the team reads as follows:
“Litigation outfit Waterfront Solicitors has built a streamlined, partner-led offering that is fast becoming one of London’s premier sources of “high-quality, specialist IP advice”. As one patron explains: “A highly knowledgeable, helpful, approachable and effective litigation partner, Waterfront compares extremely favourably to other medium-sized IP solicitor firms. It has an easy-going attitude and is mercifully free of jargon and pretence. In terms of expertise, commercial nous and tactical awareness, it is a highly recommendable practice. We have nothing but praise for it!” Dynamic duo Matthew Harris and Piers Strickland are big-ticket litigators and advocates with a wealth of experience at the highest levels. Harris is “always totally prepared, with a clear idea of what to do”. “He is a solicitor with an extraordinary eye for detail, but he never loses sight of the big picture either. Knowing that he is on the other side of a case causes opponents to up their game.” Strickland, meanwhile, is “an excellent IP solicitor with the ability to undertake demanding pieces of litigation”. “He is very responsive, always accessible, very focused on clients’ commercial imperatives and very tactically aware. He is simply a pleasure to work with, as are his colleagues.”
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…