[1]
Akester, P. 2008. Chapter 3 Peer to Peer, from: A Practical Guide to Digital Copyright Law. Sweet and Maxwell. 39–77.
[2]
Aplin, T.F. 2005. Copyright law in the digital society: the challenges of multimedia. Hart.
[3]
Aplin, T.F. and Davis, J. 2017. Intellectual property law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press.
[4]
Benjamin, J.M. 1995. Unregistered design right (Case comment on Amoena v Trulife [1995] EIPR D-346). European Intellectual Property Review. 17, 12 (1995).
[5]
Bently, L. 2012. The return of industrial copyright? European Intellectual Property Review. (2012).
[6]
Bently, L. and Sherman, B. 2018. Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press.
[7]
Cases in all United Kingdom Courts, but only from 1996: http://www.bailii.org/databases.html#ew.
[8]
Christie, A. 2023. Blackstone’s statutes on intellectual property, 16th ed. Oxford University Press.
[9]
Christie, A. 1989. The UK design copyright exemption. European Intellectual Property Review. (1989).
[10]
Cornish, W.R. 2006. Cases and materials on intellectual property. Sweet & Maxwell.
[11]
Cornish, W.R. et al. 2013. Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trademarks and allied rights. Sweet & Maxwell.
[12]
Cornish, W.R. et al. 2013. Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trademarks and allied rights. Sweet & Maxwell.
[13]
Cornwell, J. 2013. Dyson and Samsung compared: functionality and aesthetics in the design infringement analysis. European intellectual property review. (2013).
[14]
Courts of the European Union cases: http://curia.europa.eu/.
[15]
Davis, J. 2012. Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press.
[16]
Derclaye, E. 2013. A Decade of Registered and Unregistered Design Rights Decisions in the UK: What Conclusions Can We Draw for the Future of Both Types of Rights? IP Theory. 3, 2 (2013), 144–157.
[17]
Derclaye, E. 2009. Are Fashion Designers Better Protected in Continental Europe than in the United Kingdom? A Comparative Analysis of the Recent Case Law in France, Italy and the United Kingdom. The Journal of World Intellectual Property. 13, 3 (Dec. 2009), 315–365. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1796.2009.00389.x.
[18]
Derclaye, E. 2009. Are Fashion Designers Better Protected in Continental Europe than in the United Kingdom? A Comparative Analysis of the Recent Case Law in France, Italy and the United Kingdom. The Journal of World Intellectual Property. 13, 3 (Dec. 2009), 315–365. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1796.2009.00389.x.
[19]
Derclaye, E. 2008. Flashing Badge v Groves: A step forward in the clarification of the copyright/design interface. European Intellectual Property Review. (2008), 251–254.
[20]
Derclaye, E. 2000. Software copyright protection: can Europe learn from American case law? Part 1. European Intellectual Property Review. (2000), 7–16.
[21]
Derclaye, E. 2000. Software copyright protection: can Europe learn from American case law? Part 2. European Intellectual Property Review. (2000), 56–68.
[22]
Derclaye, E. 2014. The database directive. EU copyright law : a commentary. Edward Elgar Publishing. 298–354.
[23]
Derclaye, E. 2008. The legal protection of databases: a comparative analysis. Edward Elgar.
[24]
Dixon, A. 2009. Liability of Users and Third Parties for Copyright Infringements on the Internet: Overview of International Developments. Peer-to-peer file sharing and secondary liability in copyright law. Edward Elgar.
[25]
Dworkin, G. and Taylor, R.D. 1989. Blackstone’s guide to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: the law of copyright and related rights. Blackstone.
[26]
European Union Law: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/.
[27]
Football Dataco: skill and labour is dead! | Kluwer Copyright Blog: 2012. http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2012/03/01/football-dataco-skill-and-labour-is-dead/.
[28]
Garnett, K.M. et al. 2017. Copinger and Skone James on copyright. Sweet & Maxwell.
[29]
Geerts, P. 2014. The informed user in design law: what should he compare and how should he make the comparison? European Intellectual Property Review. 36, 3 (2014).
[30]
Harris, M. 2002. Unregistered design right: nature of reproduction required for infringement - comparison with copyright - hedgehogs and foxes (Case comment on L Woolley Jewellers Ltd v A&A Jewellery Ltd [2003] FSR 15). European Intellectual Property Review. 24, 12 (2002).
[31]
Laddie, H.I.L. et al. 2018. The modern law of copyright and designs. LexisNexis.
[32]
Lewinski, S. von 2008. International copyright law and policy. Oxford University Press.
[33]
Massa, C. and Strowel, A. 2003. Community design: Cinderella revamped. European Intellectual Property Review. (2003), 68–78.
[34]
Musker, D. 2003. Hidden meaning? UK perspectives on invisible in use designs. European Intellectual Property Review. (2003), 450–455.
[35]
Ricketson, S. and Ginsburg, J.C. 2022. International copyright and neighbouring rights: the Berne Convention and beyond. Oxford University Press.
[36]
Saez, V. 2002. The unregistered Community design. European Intellectual Property Review. (2002), 585–590.
[37]
Schlotelburg, M. 2003. The Community design: first experience with registrations. European Intellectual Property Review. (2003), 383–387.
[38]
Torremans, P. and Holyoak, J. 2016. Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. Oxford University Press.
[39]
Torremans, P. and Holyoak, J. 2016. Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. Oxford University Press.
[40]
Torremans, P. and Holyoak, J. 2016. Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. Oxford University Press.
[41]
Torremans, P. and Holyoak, J. 2016. Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. Oxford University Press.
[42]
Torremans, P. and Holyoak, J. 2016. Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. Oxford University Press.
[43]
Torremans, P. and Holyoak, J. 2016. Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. Oxford University Press.
[44]
United Kingdom Chancery Div. and CA decisions: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service.
[45]
Waelde, C. et al. 2016. Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy. Oxford University Press.
[46]
Weston, S. 2012. Software interfaces - stuck in the middle: the relationship between the law and software interfaces in regulating and encouraging interoperability. IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. (2012), 427–450.
[47]
Wilkinson, D. 2007. Case closed: functional designs protected by design right. European Intellectual Property Review. (2007), 118–122.
[48]
WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization: http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/.
[51]
[2012] EWCA Civ 1339 (CA).
[54]
A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001).
[55]
A. Fulton Co Ltd v Grant Barnett & Co Ltd [2001] RPC 16 (Ch D).
[56]
Baby Dan AS v Brevi SRL [1999] FSR 377.
[57]
Bailey (t/a Elite Angling products) v Haynes (t/a RAGS) [2007] FSR 10.
[58]
BBC Worldwide Ltd v Pall Screen Painting Ltd and Others [1998] FSR 665.
[59]
*BMW v. Round and Metal Ltd and P. Gross [2012] EWHC 2099 (Pat).
[60]
Case C 345/13, Karen Millen Fashions v Dunnes stores [2014] ECR I-000.
[61]
*Case C 406/10, SAS Institute v World Programming available on curia.europa.eu (2012).
[62]
Celaya Emparanza y Galdos Internacional (CEGASA) v Proyectos Integrales de Balizamiento (PROIN), Case C-488/10 (2012).
[63]
*C&H Engineering v Klucznik & Sons [1992] FSR 421.
[64]
Clinisupplies v K. Park et al [2012] EWHC 3453.
[65]
*Computer Associates v Altai, 982 F. 2d 693 (2nd Cir. 1992).
[66]
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
[67]
Council Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of com¬puter programs [1991] OJ L 122/42, codified by Directive 2009/24/EC.
[68]
*Creation Records Ltd and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] EMLR 444.
[69]
Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2006] RPC 31.
[70]
*Dyson v Vax [2010] FSR 39.
[71]
Electronic Techniques (Anglia) Ltd v Critchley Components Ltd [1997] FSR 401.
[72]
*Farmers Build Ltd v Carrier Bulk Materials [1999] RPC 461 (CA).
[73]
*Flashing Badge Co Ltd v Groves [2007] EWHC 1372 (Ch); [2007] F.S.R. 36, Ch D.
[74]
*George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd [1975] RPC 31 (HL).
[75]
Gimex International v The Chill Bag Company et al. [2012] EWPCC 31.
[76]
Green Lane Products v. PMS International [2008] EWCA Civ 358 (CA).
[77]
Guild v Eskandar [2001] FSR 38 (ChD).
[78]
Guild v Eskandar Ltd [2001] FSR 38 (ChD).
[79]
Guild v Eskandar Ltd [2003] FSR 3 (CA).
[80]
Jo-Y-Jo Ltd v Matalan Retail Ltd [2000] ECDR 178.
[81]
*L Woolley Jewellers Ltd v A&A Jewellery Ltd [2003] FSR 15 (CA).
[82]
*Lambretta Clothing Co v Teddy Smith [2004] EWCA Civ 886 (CA).
[83]
*Lambretta Clothing Co v Teddy Smith [2004] EWCA Civ 886 (CA).
[84]
Landor & Hawa International Ltd v Azure Designs Ltd [2006] FSR 22.
[85]
*Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch).
[86]
*Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch).
[87]
Mackie Designs Inc v Behringer Specialised Studio Equipment (UK) Ltd & Others [1999] RPC 717.
[88]
Magmatic v PMS International [2013] EWHC 1925.
[89]
*Mark Wilkinson v Woodcraft Designs [1998] FSR 63.
[90]
Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works For Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or otherwise Print Disabled 2013.
[91]
*Merlet v Mothercare [1986] RPC 115 (CA).
[92]
*Metix v Maughan [1997] FSR 718.
[93]
Ocular Sciences v AVCL [1997] RPC 289.
[94]
Parker v Tidball [1997] FSR 680.
[95]
*Procter & Gamble Company v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 936 (CA).
[96]
*Productores de Musica de Espana (Promusicae) v Telefonica de Espana SAU (C-275/06) [2008] All E.R. (EC) 809 (ECJ).
[97]
*Samsung Electronics v Apple [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat).
[98]
Sealed Air v Sharp Interpack et al [2013] EWPCC 23.
[99]
Shelley v Rex Features [1994] EMLR 134.
[100]
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 435, 104 S.Ct. 774, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984)).
[101]
The Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances 2012.
[102]
The Berne Convention 1886.
[103]
The TRIPs Agreement.
[104]
The Universal Copyright Convention.
[105]
The WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996.
[107]
*Vermaat v Boncrest [2001] FSR 43.
