1
Christie A. Blackstone’s statutes on intellectual property, 16th ed. Sixteenth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2023.
2
Bently L, Sherman B. Intellectual property law. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2018.
3
Cornish WR, Llewelyn D, Aplin TF. Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trademarks and allied rights. 8th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2013.
4
Davis J. Intellectual property law. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012.
5
Waelde C, Laurie G, Brown A, et al. Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2016.
6
Lewinski S von. International copyright law and policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008.
7
Aplin TF, Davis J. Intellectual property law: text, cases, and materials. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2017.
8
Cornish WR. Cases and materials on intellectual property. 5th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2006.
9
European Union Law. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
10
United Kingdom Chancery Div. and CA decisions. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service
11
Cases in all United Kingdom Courts, but only from 1996. http://www.bailii.org/databases.html#ew
12
Courts of the European Union cases. http://curia.europa.eu/
13
Garnett KM, Davies G, Harbottle G, et al. Copinger and Skone James on copyright. 17th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2017.
14
Dworkin G, Taylor RD. Blackstone’s guide to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: the law of copyright and related rights. London: Blackstone 1989.
15
Laddie HIL, Prescott P, Vitoria M. The modern law of copyright and designs. 5th ed. London: LexisNexis 2018.
16
The Berne Convention 1886.
17
The Universal Copyright Convention.
18
The WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996.
19
The TRIPs Agreement.
20
The Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances 2012.
21
Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works For Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or otherwise Print Disabled 2013.
22
Ricketson S, Ginsburg JC. International copyright and neighbouring rights: the Berne Convention and beyond. Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2022.
23
Council Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of com¬puter programs [1991] OJ L 122/42, codified by Directive 2009/24/EC.
24
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
25
*Computer Associates v Altai, 982 F. 2d 693 (2nd Cir. 1992).
26
*Case C 406/10, SAS  Institute v World Programming  available on curia.europa.eu (2012).
27
Torremans P, Holyoak J. Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. 8th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2016.
28
Derclaye E. Software copyright protection: can Europe learn from American case law? Part 1. European Intellectual Property Review. 2000;7–16.
29
Derclaye E. Software copyright protection: can Europe learn from American case law? Part 2. European Intellectual Property Review. 2000;56–68.
30
Weston S. 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;427–50.
31
Torremans P, Holyoak J. Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2016.
32
Derclaye E. The database directive. EU copyright law : a commentary. Edward Elgar Publishing 2014:298–354.
33
Derclaye E. The legal protection of databases: a comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 2008.
34
Derclaye E. Football Dataco: skill and labour is dead! | Kluwer Copyright Blog. 2012. http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2012/03/01/football-dataco-skill-and-labour-is-dead/
35
WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization. http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/
36
Torremans P, Holyoak J. Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2016.
37
Cornish WR, Llewelyn D, Aplin TF. Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trademarks and allied rights. 8th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell 2013.
38
Aplin TF. Copyright law in the digital society: the challenges of multimedia. Oxford: Hart 2005.
39
US copyright act.
40
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 435, 104 S.Ct. 774, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984)).
41
A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001).
42
*Productores de Musica de Espana (Promusicae) v Telefonica de Espana SAU (C-275/06) [2008] All E.R. (EC) 809 (ECJ).
43
Akester P. Chapter 3 Peer to Peer, from: A Practical Guide to Digital Copyright Law. Sweet and Maxwell 2008:39–77.
44
Dixon A. 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. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 2009.
45
*Metix v Maughan [1997] FSR 718.
46
*Creation Records Ltd and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] EMLR 444.
47
*Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch).
48
[2011] UKSC 39.
49
*George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd [1975] RPC 31 (HL).
50
*Merlet v Mothercare [1986] RPC 115 (CA).
51
Shelley v Rex Features [1994] EMLR 134.
52
*Vermaat v Boncrest [2001] FSR 43.
53
Guild v Eskandar [2001] FSR 38 (ChD).
54
*Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch).
55
Mackie Designs Inc v Behringer Specialised Studio Equipment (UK) Ltd & Others [1999] RPC 717.
56
BBC Worldwide Ltd v Pall Screen Painting Ltd and Others [1998] FSR 665.
57
*Lambretta Clothing Co v Teddy Smith [2004] EWCA Civ 886 (CA).
58
*Flashing Badge Co Ltd v Groves [2007] EWHC 1372 (Ch); [2007] F.S.R. 36, Ch D.
59
Torremans P, Holyoak J. Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2016.
60
Derclaye E. Flashing Badge v Groves: A step forward in the clarification of the copyright/design interface. European Intellectual Property Review. 2008;251–4.
61
Christie A. The UK design copyright exemption. European Intellectual Property Review. Published Online First: 1989.
62
Bently L. The return of industrial copyright? European Intellectual Property Review. Published Online First: 2012.
63
Torremans P, Holyoak J. Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2016.
64
Saez V. The unregistered Community design. European Intellectual Property Review. 2002;585–90.
65
Musker D. Hidden meaning? UK perspectives on invisible in use designs. European Intellectual Property Review. 2003;450–5.
66
Cornwell J. Dyson and Samsung compared: functionality and aesthetics in the design infringement analysis. European intellectual property review. Published Online First: 2013.
67
Geerts P. The informed user in design law: what should he compare and how should he make the comparison? European Intellectual Property Review. 2014;36.
68
*Procter & Gamble Company v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 936 (CA).
69
Bailey (t/a Elite Angling products) v Haynes (t/a RAGS) [2007] FSR 10.
70
Green Lane Products v. PMS International [2008] EWCA Civ 358 (CA).
71
*Dyson v Vax [2010] FSR 39.
72
[2012] FSR 4.
73
*Samsung Electronics v Apple [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat).
74
[2012] EWCA Civ 1339 (CA).
75
*BMW v. Round and Metal Ltd and P. Gross [2012] EWHC 2099 (Pat).
76
Gimex International v The Chill Bag Company et al. [2012] EWPCC 31.
77
Celaya Emparanza y Galdos Internacional (CEGASA) v Proyectos Integrales de Balizamiento (PROIN), Case C-488/10 (2012).
78
Magmatic v PMS International [2013] EWHC 1925.
79
[2014] EWCA Civ 181.
80
Case C 345/13, Karen Millen Fashions v Dunnes stores [2014] ECR I-000.
81
Massa C, Strowel A. Community design: Cinderella revamped. European Intellectual Property Review. 2003;68–78.
82
Schlotelburg M. The Community design: first experience with registrations. European Intellectual Property Review. 2003;383–7.
83
Wilkinson D. Case closed: functional designs protected by design right. European Intellectual Property Review. 2007;118–22.
84
Derclaye E. 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. 2009;13:315–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-1796.2009.00389.x
85
*C&H Engineering v Klucznik & Sons [1992] FSR 421.
86
Benjamin JM. Unregistered design right (Case comment on Amoena v Trulife [1995] EIPR D-346). European Intellectual Property Review. 1995;17.
87
Ocular Sciences v AVCL [1997] RPC 289.
88
Parker v Tidball [1997] FSR 680.
89
Electronic Techniques (Anglia) Ltd v Critchley Components Ltd [1997] FSR 401.
90
*Mark Wilkinson v Woodcraft Designs [1998] FSR 63.
91
*Farmers Build Ltd v Carrier Bulk Materials [1999] RPC 461 (CA).
92
Baby Dan AS v Brevi SRL [1999] FSR 377.
93
Jo-Y-Jo Ltd v Matalan Retail Ltd [2000] ECDR 178.
94
A. Fulton Co Ltd v Grant Barnett & Co Ltd [2001] RPC 16 (Ch D).
95
Guild v Eskandar Ltd [2001] FSR 38 (ChD).
96
Guild v Eskandar Ltd [2003] FSR 3 (CA).
97
*L Woolley Jewellers Ltd v A&A Jewellery Ltd [2003] FSR 15 (CA).
98
Harris M. 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. 2002;24.
99
*Lambretta Clothing Co v Teddy Smith [2004] EWCA Civ 886 (CA).
100
Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2006] RPC 31.
101
Landor & Hawa International Ltd v Azure Designs Ltd [2006] FSR 22.
102
[2007] FSR 9.
103
Clinisupplies v K. Park et al [2012] EWHC 3453.
104
Sealed Air v Sharp Interpack et al [2013] EWPCC 23.
105
Torremans P, Holyoak J. Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2016.
106
Derclaye E. 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. 2009;13:315–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-1796.2009.00389.x
107
Derclaye E. 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. 2013;3:144–57.