CIPIL Intellectual Property Seminar Series

Speaker: Dr Alvaro Fernandez-Mora, KCL Abstract: As trade marks have evolved to perform an expressive function, courts and scholars on both sides of the Atlantic have devoted increased attention to elucidating when, and how, marks and speech interact. Three forms of interaction can be identified in European and US case law. First, in infringement litigation, a defendant can invoke speech with a view toward insulating from liability his unauthorized use of plaintiff’s mark for expressive purposes, usually for parody or commentary. Second, in trade mark registration, unsuccessful applicants can invoke speech to challenge the validity of a refusal of registration. And third, in constitutional challenges, a trade mark owner can invoke speech in seeking to strike down public measures encroaching on trade mark use. Regrettably, to date, commentators have had a tendency to focus on one form of interaction at a time, placing special emphasis on infringement cases. Their analyses and proposals for reform have privileged this form of interaction in an effort to avoid the severe repercussions that unbridled enforcement of trade mark rights could have on defendants’ speech. This has led to an impoverished understanding of the interaction between marks and speech, broadly considered. In the absence of comprehensive studies covering the diversity of instances where both sets of rights interact, conventional wisdom posits that their interaction is unidirectional, in the sense that trade mark rights chill expression. My ongoing research seeks to redress this misconception by engaging in a taxonomic analysis of the diverse scenarios in which marks and speech interact. Their joint study reveals that this interaction is best understood as a two-way street, where freedom of expression can simultaneously limit and validate trade mark rights. The proposed reconceptualization of the interaction between marks and speech can contribute significantly to the advancement of the field. Biography: Dr Alvaro Fernandez-Mora is a Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at The Dickson Poon School of Law. Alvaro joined King's College London in 2024, having previously worked as a Lecturer in Law at the University of York (2021-2024). Alvaro has earned degrees from the University of Oxford (DPhil), Harvard Law School (LLM) and Universidad Pontificia Comillas de Madrid ICADE (LLB). Before pursuing his doctoral studies, Alvaro worked as an associate lawyer at Hogan Lovells LLP’s intellectual property litigation department in Madrid. Alvaro's research interests lie at the intersection between intellectual property law and other fields –notably human rights, competition law and economics–, often from a comparative perspective. Alvaro's work has been published in the Berkeley Journal of International Law (BJIL), the International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) or the Intellectual Property Quarterly (IPQ). For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Alvaro Fernandez-Mora, KCL Abstract: As trade marks have evolved to perform an expressive function, courts and scholars on both sides of the Atlantic have devoted increased attention to elucidating when, and how, marks and speech interact. Three forms of interaction can be identified in European and US case law. First, in infringement litigation, a defendant can invoke speech with a view toward insulating from liability his unauthorized use of plaintiff’s mark for expressive purposes, usually for parody or commentary. Second, in trade mark registration, unsuccessful applicants can invoke speech to challenge the validity of a refusal of registration. And third, in constitutional challenges, a trade mark owner can invoke speech in seeking to strike down public measures encroaching on trade mark use. Regrettably, to date, commentators have had a tendency to focus on one form of interaction at a time, placing special emphasis on infringement cases. Their analyses and proposals for reform have privileged this form of interaction in an effort to avoid the severe repercussions that unbridled enforcement of trade mark rights could have on defendants’ speech. This has led to an impoverished understanding of the interaction between marks and speech, broadly considered. In the absence of comprehensive studies covering the diversity of instances where both sets of rights interact, conventional wisdom posits that their interaction is unidirectional, in the sense that trade mark rights chill expression. My ongoing research seeks to redress this misconception by engaging in a taxonomic analysis of the diverse scenarios in which marks and speech interact. Their joint study reveals that this interaction is best understood as a two-way street, where freedom of expression can simultaneously limit and validate trade mark rights. The proposed reconceptualization of the interaction between marks and speech can contribute significantly to the advancement of the field. Biography: Dr Alvaro Fernandez-Mora is a Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at The Dickson Poon School of Law. Alvaro joined King's College London in 2024, having previously worked as a Lecturer in Law at the University of York (2021-2024). Alvaro has earned degrees from the University of Oxford (DPhil), Harvard Law School (LLM) and Universidad Pontificia Comillas de Madrid ICADE (LLB). Before pursuing his doctoral studies, Alvaro worked as an associate lawyer at Hogan Lovells LLP’s intellectual property litigation department in Madrid. Alvaro's research interests lie at the intersection between intellectual property law and other fields –notably human rights, competition law and economics–, often from a comparative perspective. Alvaro's work has been published in the Berkeley Journal of International Law (BJIL), the International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) or the Intellectual Property Quarterly (IPQ). For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Thomas St Quintin, Hogarth Chambers Abstract: Lessons from the decision of the IPEC in Shazam v Only Fools the Dining Experience, and cases referred to in that decision, addressing the findings that copyright can subsist in fictional characters (and the factors that the court relied upon in reaching that conclusion), and the defences of fair dealing for the purposes of parody and pastiche. Biography: Thomas St Quintin is a barrister at Hogarth Chambers. He specialises in intellectual property, media and entertainment. He has been instructed in cases in the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court, and has appeared as the sole or lead advocate in each of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, and in the UKIPO. His practice covers all areas of IP law, and is fairly evenly split between patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and confidential information cases (both technical and those involving privacy). He is a co-author of the Modern Law of Trade Marks, of Intellectual Property in Europe, and is a contributor to Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Thomas St Quintin, Hogarth Chambers Abstract: Lessons from the decision of the IPEC in Shazam v Only Fools the Dining Experience, and cases referred to in that decision, addressing the findings that copyright can subsist in fictional characters (and the factors that the court relied upon in reaching that conclusion), and the defences of fair dealing for the purposes of parody and pastiche. Biography: Thomas St Quintin is a barrister at Hogarth Chambers. He specialises in intellectual property, media and entertainment. He has been instructed in cases in the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court, and has appeared as the sole or lead advocate in each of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, and in the UKIPO. His practice covers all areas of IP law, and is fairly evenly split between patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and confidential information cases (both technical and those involving privacy). He is a co-author of the Modern Law of Trade Marks, of Intellectual Property in Europe, and is a contributor to Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Stuart Baran, Three New Square Abstract: The UK Supreme Court recently gave judgment in Thaler, upholding the refusal of patent applications listing DABUS, an AI, as the inventor. After looking at what the UKSC decided and why, I will consider three broader questions that arise from the litigation: (i) why did the case take the shape it did – in particular, was it driven by questions of procedure more than substance?; (ii) what does the judgment mean for patents arising from AI inventions in future?; and (iii) how do we approach the appropriate division of labour between the courts and Parliament in approaching these questions? Biography: Stuart is Barrister at Three New Square Chambers. He was Legal 500 Junior of the Year in IP, IT and Media for 2018. In 2019 he was appointed to a three-year term as one of two Standing Counsel to HM Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. He practises in all areas of intellectual property, including: patents, SPCs, trade marks, passing off, copyright, designs and confidential information. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Stuart Baran, Three New Square Abstract: The UK Supreme Court recently gave judgment in Thaler, upholding the refusal of patent applications listing DABUS, an AI, as the inventor. After looking at what the UKSC decided and why, I will consider three broader questions that arise from the litigation: (i) why did the case take the shape it did – in particular, was it driven by questions of procedure more than substance?; (ii) what does the judgment mean for patents arising from AI inventions in future?; and (iii) how do we approach the appropriate division of labour between the courts and Parliament in approaching these questions? Biography: Stuart is Barrister at Three New Square Chambers. He was Legal 500 Junior of the Year in IP, IT and Media for 2018. In 2019 he was appointed to a three-year term as one of two Standing Counsel to HM Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. He practises in all areas of intellectual property, including: patents, SPCs, trade marks, passing off, copyright, designs and confidential information. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Professor Paul Wragg, University of Leeds Biography: Professor Paul Wragg is Professor of Media Law at the University of Leeds. He has written extensively on privacy and press freedom. His monograph on the compatibility of compulsory press regulation with press freedom was published by Hart in May, 2020. He is co-editor (with Professor András Koltay) of a collection of papers examining comparative privacy and defamation laws, published by Edward Elgar in July 2020 and was previously editor-in-chief of Communications Law (2016-2019). He has been at Leeds since September 2009, having previously taught at Durham University and the University of Birmingham. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Professor Paul Wragg, University of Leeds Biography: Professor Paul Wragg is Professor of Media Law at the University of Leeds. He has written extensively on privacy and press freedom. His monograph on the compatibility of compulsory press regulation with press freedom was published by Hart in May, 2020. He is co-editor (with Professor András Koltay) of a collection of papers examining comparative privacy and defamation laws, published by Edward Elgar in July 2020 and was previously editor-in-chief of Communications Law (2016-2019). He has been at Leeds since September 2009, having previously taught at Durham University and the University of Birmingham. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Dr Alina Trapova, UCL Biography: Dr Alina Trapova is a Lecturer in IP Law at University College London (UCL) and a Co-Director of the Institute for Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL) at UCL Laws. Prior to that, she worked at the University of Nottingham as an Assistant Professor in Law and Autonomous Systems and Bocconi University as a Research Assistant and Coordinator of the LLM in European Business and Social Law. Alina's research interests focus on copyright law and the implications of machine learning and artificial intelligence on the creative industries. Alina also has a keen interest in EU law, particularly in examining the EU's law-making powers in the field of IP law. She is also a keen blogger and acts as a Co-Managing Editor of the well-known Kluwer Copyright Blog. Abstract: AI-generated output has been a topic for discussion in the past years in academic, institutional and governmental circles. The topic involves a copyright challenge on both the input and output stage: (i) is an AI system engaging in copyright infringing activities when it processes information for the purposes of training; and (ii) are the outputs of these systems protected with copyright law as original works? While answers to these questions have remained difficult to find, a new type of AI systems have come to light – generative AI. These typically engage in the so-called prompt engineering activity whereby images and music are generated as a result of written text instructions. The copyright law puzzle becomes even more difficult to put together. This seminar will paint the picture of these issues by referring to EU, UK, and US copyright law due to ongoing litigation in these jurisdictions, as well as legislative and policy initiatives. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Alina Trapova, UCL Biography: Dr Alina Trapova is a Lecturer in IP Law at University College London (UCL) and a Co-Director of the Institute for Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL) at UCL Laws. Prior to that, she worked at the University of Nottingham as an Assistant Professor in Law and Autonomous Systems and Bocconi University as a Research Assistant and Coordinator of the LLM in European Business and Social Law. Alina's research interests focus on copyright law and the implications of machine learning and artificial intelligence on the creative industries. Alina also has a keen interest in EU law, particularly in examining the EU's law-making powers in the field of IP law. She is also a keen blogger and acts as a Co-Managing Editor of the well-known Kluwer Copyright Blog. Abstract: AI-generated output has been a topic for discussion in the past years in academic, institutional and governmental circles. The topic involves a copyright challenge on both the input and output stage: (i) is an AI system engaging in copyright infringing activities when it processes information for the purposes of training; and (ii) are the outputs of these systems protected with copyright law as original works? While answers to these questions have remained difficult to find, a new type of AI systems have come to light – generative AI. These typically engage in the so-called prompt engineering activity whereby images and music are generated as a result of written text instructions. The copyright law puzzle becomes even more difficult to put together. This seminar will paint the picture of these issues by referring to EU, UK, and US copyright law due to ongoing litigation in these jurisdictions, as well as legislative and policy initiatives. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Dr Eden Sarid, Essex Law School Biography: Eden Sarid is a lecturer at Essex Law School. His research and teaching interests include intellectual property, land law, law and technology, and cultural heritage law. Abstract: This study offers a new way of thinking through the questions of what drives creativity and the role that IP plays in creative production, by empirically examining how the drag subculture governed creativity, entitlements, and information-exchange over time. First, in the 1990s when drag was a counterculture and from the mid-2010s onwards, after transforming into a lucrative mainstream industry. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Eden Sarid, Essex Law School Biography: Eden Sarid is a lecturer at Essex Law School. His research and teaching interests include intellectual property, land law, law and technology, and cultural heritage law. Abstract: This study offers a new way of thinking through the questions of what drives creativity and the role that IP plays in creative production, by empirically examining how the drag subculture governed creativity, entitlements, and information-exchange over time. First, in the 1990s when drag was a counterculture and from the mid-2010s onwards, after transforming into a lucrative mainstream industry. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Professor Ida Madieha Abdul Ghani Azmi, IIUM Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Biography: Ida Madieha bt. Abdul Ghani Azmi obtained her LLB from IIUM, LLM from University of Cambridge and Ph.D from University of London (1995). Dr. Ida has authored and presented extensively on various issues on Intellectual Property and Cyberlaw. She is currently a Professor at the Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws and the former Dean of Center for Postgraduate Studies, IIUM. She was the lead consultant for the Drafting of National Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Competition (2017-2018). She served as the Consultant to WIPO for the Drafting of IP Modules for MyIPO Malaysia (2017), the IP Policy for Kathmandu University (2016) and IP Curriculum and Syllabus in Bangladesh (2014). She has assisted WIPO on to design Database of Copyright law and Policy for ASEAN countries (2022) Model Curriculum on Copyright for Arts and Culture Schools in Developing Countries (UG and PG) (2022) and serve as a resource person for WIPO Training programmes. She currently serves as the consultant to the drafting of the Malaysian Cybersecurity Bill, which is awaiting to be tabled to the Parliament. Dr Ida served as a member of the Board of the Malaysian Intellectual Property Office (MyIPO) (2004-2008), (2018-2020). She was the former Deputy Director of the Malaysian Copyright Tribunal (2014-2016). She acts as a Domain Name Panelist with the Kuala Lumpur Arbitration Centre and Asian International Arbitration Centre. In the past, Dr Ida served as a resource person for the Intellectual Property Training Centre, ILKAB and the WTO Regional Trade Policy Program for Asia Pacific. She has served as the External Reviewer for the Multimedia University Law Faculty (2017-2018)(2019-2021) and Guest Editor, Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities. Abstract: Many countries, including Malaysia, are embarking on ambitious plans to take full advantage of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies in transforming their economy. Given that the deployment of AI necessitates a supportive and comprehensive legal framework, the legal status of AI as an artificial person comes into picture. Where an AI technology is considered as mere tool for human consumption, there is no issue as to whether they should be recognised as separate legal entities accountable to their own rights and responsibilities. Yet, this is where the storm is brewing. With the ability of AI platforms to match human abilities on certain activities, in addition to the astronomical resources being poured into the development of human-like sentient AI, there is a fresh call for the legal status of AI to be revisited. This talk begins with an examination of the ontological status of personhood in contemporary discourse. The talk then moves to explore the discussion on ‘personhood’ within Muslim scholar’s discourse. Core to the issue is in what context would rights and obligations arising from AI activities and transactions be recognised under the Shariah. As Shariah is the golden thread that binds most Muslim countries, the articulation of the Shariah perspective would be beneficial to these countries aiming to build their entire economy based on AI products and services. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Professor Ida Madieha Abdul Ghani Azmi, IIUM Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Biography: Ida Madieha bt. Abdul Ghani Azmi obtained her LLB from IIUM, LLM from University of Cambridge and Ph.D from University of London (1995). Dr. Ida has authored and presented extensively on various issues on Intellectual Property and Cyberlaw. She is currently a Professor at the Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws and the former Dean of Center for Postgraduate Studies, IIUM. She was the lead consultant for the Drafting of National Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Competition (2017-2018). She served as the Consultant to WIPO for the Drafting of IP Modules for MyIPO Malaysia (2017), the IP Policy for Kathmandu University (2016) and IP Curriculum and Syllabus in Bangladesh (2014). She has assisted WIPO on to design Database of Copyright law and Policy for ASEAN countries (2022) Model Curriculum on Copyright for Arts and Culture Schools in Developing Countries (UG and PG) (2022) and serve as a resource person for WIPO Training programmes. She currently serves as the consultant to the drafting of the Malaysian Cybersecurity Bill, which is awaiting to be tabled to the Parliament. Dr Ida served as a member of the Board of the Malaysian Intellectual Property Office (MyIPO) (2004-2008), (2018-2020). She was the former Deputy Director of the Malaysian Copyright Tribunal (2014-2016). She acts as a Domain Name Panelist with the Kuala Lumpur Arbitration Centre and Asian International Arbitration Centre. In the past, Dr Ida served as a resource person for the Intellectual Property Training Centre, ILKAB and the WTO Regional Trade Policy Program for Asia Pacific. She has served as the External Reviewer for the Multimedia University Law Faculty (2017-2018)(2019-2021) and Guest Editor, Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities. Abstract: Many countries, including Malaysia, are embarking on ambitious plans to take full advantage of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies in transforming their economy. Given that the deployment of AI necessitates a supportive and comprehensive legal framework, the legal status of AI as an artificial person comes into picture. Where an AI technology is considered as mere tool for human consumption, there is no issue as to whether they should be recognised as separate legal entities accountable to their own rights and responsibilities. Yet, this is where the storm is brewing. With the ability of AI platforms to match human abilities on certain activities, in addition to the astronomical resources being poured into the development of human-like sentient AI, there is a fresh call for the legal status of AI to be revisited. This talk begins with an examination of the ontological status of personhood in contemporary discourse. The talk then moves to explore the discussion on ‘personhood’ within Muslim scholar’s discourse. Core to the issue is in what context would rights and obligations arising from AI activities and transactions be recognised under the Shariah. As Shariah is the golden thread that binds most Muslim countries, the articulation of the Shariah perspective would be beneficial to these countries aiming to build their entire economy based on AI products and services. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Dr Luke McDonagh, London School of Economics Biography: Dr Luke McDonagh the LSE Law School in 2020. He undertakes research in the areas of Intellectual Property Law and Constitutional Law. Prior to taking up his position at LSE he was a Senior Lecturer at City, University of London (2015-2020), a Lecturer at Cardiff University (2013-2015) and LSE Fellow (2011-13). Luke holds a PhD from Queen Mary, University of London (2011), an LL.M from the London School of Economics (LSE) (2006-7) and a B.C.L. degree from NUI, Galway (2002-05). He is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA). For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Luke McDonagh, London School of Economics Biography: Dr Luke McDonagh the LSE Law School in 2020. He undertakes research in the areas of Intellectual Property Law and Constitutional Law. Prior to taking up his position at LSE he was a Senior Lecturer at City, University of London (2015-2020), a Lecturer at Cardiff University (2013-2015) and LSE Fellow (2011-13). Luke holds a PhD from Queen Mary, University of London (2011), an LL.M from the London School of Economics (LSE) (2006-7) and a B.C.L. degree from NUI, Galway (2002-05). He is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA). This entry provides an audio source for iTunes. For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

CIPIL Spring Conference 2023: Intellectual Property Rights as Allied Rights: Bill Cornish and the Making of Today’s Intellectual Property System In 1981, Professor Bill Cornish published the first student textbook on “Intellectual Property”. The book was to prove hugely influential, as academic courses on the subject proliferated around the country. In turn, it spawned a host of imitators, all of whom stuck doggedly with the template Cornish had provided (of treating patents, copyright and trade marks together). However, now in its 9th edition, and curated and updated by Professors David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin, the text has never been surpassed. One of the most significant aspects of the book was its very categorisation. Entitled “Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights”, the textbook presented the distinct legal regimes as “allied” in important respects. Previously, practitioner texts had treated the fields of copyright, patent, trade marks and designs as deserving of separate treatment (in Copinger; Terrell; Kerly and Russell-Clarke; while, at the international level, the Paris and Berne Conventions had instilled a dichotomy between “industrial property”, on the one hand, and copyright and neighbouring rights on the other. Although it would be inaccurate to attribute the shift in thinking to the Cornish textbook (and certainly there were important precursors, not least establishment of WIPO in 1967), forty years on from the publication of Cornish’s seminal text, “intellectual property” has been cemented as a foundational legal concept. The term is deployed in international treaties (e.g. TRIPs, but as a chapter in the vast majority of free trade agreements), in regional instruments (Article 17 of the EU Charter, the EU’s Enforcement Directive), in national constitutions, in domestic legislation; the term is used to denominate governmental and non-governmental organisations, not least the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the now numerous “intellectual property offices” around the world (including the UKIPO and EUIPO). In the UK, the notion of “intellectual property” serves to define the field of operation of distinct civil procedure rules, as well as the remedies available to litigators. Moreover, the concept figures in the names, and to define the operational fields of, professorial chairs (Bill was the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property between 1995 and 2004); institutes (such as CIPIL, which was conceived under Bill’s watch and founded to coincide with Bill’s retirement), journals (such as the E.I.P.R. and I.P.Q.) and scholarly organisations (such as A.T.R.I.P., to which Bill gave strong support during his career, including as president from 1985-7). Of course, the concept of “intellectual property” has not gone uncriticised, and its usefulness unchallenged. Some institutes and journals have, of late, abandoned the term: the Max Planck Institute is now an institute for “innovation and competition law”, and UCL has an “Institute of Brands and Innovation Law.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently been located within the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. At this conference, we bring together scholars and practitioners, many of whom had a first hand relationship with Bill, to consider critically the origin, history, and utility of the notion of “intellectual property”, and more generally of thinking of trade marks, patents and copyright as “allied rights.” Reflecting Bill’s origins (in Australia), his cosmopolitanism (in particular his connection, as external academic member (from 1989) at the Max Planck Institute in Munich), and internationalism (as well as being President of A.T.R.I.P. from 1985-7 and Vice-President of A.L.A.I. from 1990), as well as the links he forged between university and practice (as a door tenant at 8 New Square), the conference will bring together a range of perspectives on the question of intellectual property as “allied rights.”

CIPIL Spring Conference 2023: Intellectual Property Rights as Allied Rights: Bill Cornish and the Making of Today’s Intellectual Property System In 1981, Professor Bill Cornish published the first student textbook on “Intellectual Property”. The book was to prove hugely influential, as academic courses on the subject proliferated around the country. In turn, it spawned a host of imitators, all of whom stuck doggedly with the template Cornish had provided (of treating patents, copyright and trade marks together). However, now in its 9th edition, and curated and updated by Professors David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin, the text has never been surpassed. One of the most significant aspects of the book was its very categorisation. Entitled “Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights”, the textbook presented the distinct legal regimes as “allied” in important respects. Previously, practitioner texts had treated the fields of copyright, patent, trade marks and designs as deserving of separate treatment (in Copinger; Terrell; Kerly and Russell-Clarke; while, at the international level, the Paris and Berne Conventions had instilled a dichotomy between “industrial property”, on the one hand, and copyright and neighbouring rights on the other. Although it would be inaccurate to attribute the shift in thinking to the Cornish textbook (and certainly there were important precursors, not least establishment of WIPO in 1967), forty years on from the publication of Cornish’s seminal text, “intellectual property” has been cemented as a foundational legal concept. The term is deployed in international treaties (e.g. TRIPs, but as a chapter in the vast majority of free trade agreements), in regional instruments (Article 17 of the EU Charter, the EU’s Enforcement Directive), in national constitutions, in domestic legislation; the term is used to denominate governmental and non-governmental organisations, not least the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the now numerous “intellectual property offices” around the world (including the UKIPO and EUIPO). In the UK, the notion of “intellectual property” serves to define the field of operation of distinct civil procedure rules, as well as the remedies available to litigators. Moreover, the concept figures in the names, and to define the operational fields of, professorial chairs (Bill was the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property between 1995 and 2004); institutes (such as CIPIL, which was conceived under Bill’s watch and founded to coincide with Bill’s retirement), journals (such as the E.I.P.R. and I.P.Q.) and scholarly organisations (such as A.T.R.I.P., to which Bill gave strong support during his career, including as president from 1985-7). Of course, the concept of “intellectual property” has not gone uncriticised, and its usefulness unchallenged. Some institutes and journals have, of late, abandoned the term: the Max Planck Institute is now an institute for “innovation and competition law”, and UCL has an “Institute of Brands and Innovation Law.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently been located within the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. At this conference, we bring together scholars and practitioners, many of whom had a first hand relationship with Bill, to consider critically the origin, history, and utility of the notion of “intellectual property”, and more generally of thinking of trade marks, patents and copyright as “allied rights.” Reflecting Bill’s origins (in Australia), his cosmopolitanism (in particular his connection, as external academic member (from 1989) at the Max Planck Institute in Munich), and internationalism (as well as being President of A.T.R.I.P. from 1985-7 and Vice-President of A.L.A.I. from 1990), as well as the links he forged between university and practice (as a door tenant at 8 New Square), the conference will bring together a range of perspectives on the question of intellectual property as “allied rights.”

CIPIL Spring Conference 2023: Intellectual Property Rights as Allied Rights: Bill Cornish and the Making of Today’s Intellectual Property System In 1981, Professor Bill Cornish published the first student textbook on “Intellectual Property”. The book was to prove hugely influential, as academic courses on the subject proliferated around the country. In turn, it spawned a host of imitators, all of whom stuck doggedly with the template Cornish had provided (of treating patents, copyright and trade marks together). However, now in its 9th edition, and curated and updated by Professors David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin, the text has never been surpassed. One of the most significant aspects of the book was its very categorisation. Entitled “Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights”, the textbook presented the distinct legal regimes as “allied” in important respects. Previously, practitioner texts had treated the fields of copyright, patent, trade marks and designs as deserving of separate treatment (in Copinger; Terrell; Kerly and Russell-Clarke; while, at the international level, the Paris and Berne Conventions had instilled a dichotomy between “industrial property”, on the one hand, and copyright and neighbouring rights on the other. Although it would be inaccurate to attribute the shift in thinking to the Cornish textbook (and certainly there were important precursors, not least establishment of WIPO in 1967), forty years on from the publication of Cornish’s seminal text, “intellectual property” has been cemented as a foundational legal concept. The term is deployed in international treaties (e.g. TRIPs, but as a chapter in the vast majority of free trade agreements), in regional instruments (Article 17 of the EU Charter, the EU’s Enforcement Directive), in national constitutions, in domestic legislation; the term is used to denominate governmental and non-governmental organisations, not least the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the now numerous “intellectual property offices” around the world (including the UKIPO and EUIPO). In the UK, the notion of “intellectual property” serves to define the field of operation of distinct civil procedure rules, as well as the remedies available to litigators. Moreover, the concept figures in the names, and to define the operational fields of, professorial chairs (Bill was the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property between 1995 and 2004); institutes (such as CIPIL, which was conceived under Bill’s watch and founded to coincide with Bill’s retirement), journals (such as the E.I.P.R. and I.P.Q.) and scholarly organisations (such as A.T.R.I.P., to which Bill gave strong support during his career, including as president from 1985-7). Of course, the concept of “intellectual property” has not gone uncriticised, and its usefulness unchallenged. Some institutes and journals have, of late, abandoned the term: the Max Planck Institute is now an institute for “innovation and competition law”, and UCL has an “Institute of Brands and Innovation Law.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently been located within the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. At this conference, we bring together scholars and practitioners, many of whom had a first hand relationship with Bill, to consider critically the origin, history, and utility of the notion of “intellectual property”, and more generally of thinking of trade marks, patents and copyright as “allied rights.” Reflecting Bill’s origins (in Australia), his cosmopolitanism (in particular his connection, as external academic member (from 1989) at the Max Planck Institute in Munich), and internationalism (as well as being President of A.T.R.I.P. from 1985-7 and Vice-President of A.L.A.I. from 1990), as well as the links he forged between university and practice (as a door tenant at 8 New Square), the conference will bring together a range of perspectives on the question of intellectual property as “allied rights.”

CIPIL Spring Conference 2023: Intellectual Property Rights as Allied Rights: Bill Cornish and the Making of Today’s Intellectual Property System In 1981, Professor Bill Cornish published the first student textbook on “Intellectual Property”. The book was to prove hugely influential, as academic courses on the subject proliferated around the country. In turn, it spawned a host of imitators, all of whom stuck doggedly with the template Cornish had provided (of treating patents, copyright and trade marks together). However, now in its 9th edition, and curated and updated by Professors David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin, the text has never been surpassed. One of the most significant aspects of the book was its very categorisation. Entitled “Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights”, the textbook presented the distinct legal regimes as “allied” in important respects. Previously, practitioner texts had treated the fields of copyright, patent, trade marks and designs as deserving of separate treatment (in Copinger; Terrell; Kerly and Russell-Clarke; while, at the international level, the Paris and Berne Conventions had instilled a dichotomy between “industrial property”, on the one hand, and copyright and neighbouring rights on the other. Although it would be inaccurate to attribute the shift in thinking to the Cornish textbook (and certainly there were important precursors, not least establishment of WIPO in 1967), forty years on from the publication of Cornish’s seminal text, “intellectual property” has been cemented as a foundational legal concept. The term is deployed in international treaties (e.g. TRIPs, but as a chapter in the vast majority of free trade agreements), in regional instruments (Article 17 of the EU Charter, the EU’s Enforcement Directive), in national constitutions, in domestic legislation; the term is used to denominate governmental and non-governmental organisations, not least the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the now numerous “intellectual property offices” around the world (including the UKIPO and EUIPO). In the UK, the notion of “intellectual property” serves to define the field of operation of distinct civil procedure rules, as well as the remedies available to litigators. Moreover, the concept figures in the names, and to define the operational fields of, professorial chairs (Bill was the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property between 1995 and 2004); institutes (such as CIPIL, which was conceived under Bill’s watch and founded to coincide with Bill’s retirement), journals (such as the E.I.P.R. and I.P.Q.) and scholarly organisations (such as A.T.R.I.P., to which Bill gave strong support during his career, including as president from 1985-7). Of course, the concept of “intellectual property” has not gone uncriticised, and its usefulness unchallenged. Some institutes and journals have, of late, abandoned the term: the Max Planck Institute is now an institute for “innovation and competition law”, and UCL has an “Institute of Brands and Innovation Law.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently been located within the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. At this conference, we bring together scholars and practitioners, many of whom had a first hand relationship with Bill, to consider critically the origin, history, and utility of the notion of “intellectual property”, and more generally of thinking of trade marks, patents and copyright as “allied rights.” Reflecting Bill’s origins (in Australia), his cosmopolitanism (in particular his connection, as external academic member (from 1989) at the Max Planck Institute in Munich), and internationalism (as well as being President of A.T.R.I.P. from 1985-7 and Vice-President of A.L.A.I. from 1990), as well as the links he forged between university and practice (as a door tenant at 8 New Square), the conference will bring together a range of perspectives on the question of intellectual property as “allied rights.”