The Legal 500

HANOVER HOUSE, 14 HANOVER SQUARE, LONDON, W1S 1HP, ENGLAND
Tel:
Work 020 7667 5000
Fax:
Fax 020 7667 5100
DX:
44617 MAYFAIR
Web:
www.harbottle.com
Email:

Main work contacts

CategoryContact
Managing partner Glen Atchison
Advertising and marketing Andy Millmore
Aviation Alison Wilds
Broadcasting Tony Ballard
Charities David Scott
Company and commercial Colin Howes
Corporate finance Tim Parker
Corporate recovery and insolvency Rhys Llewellyn
Defamation Gerrard Tyrrell
E-commerce and new media Mark Phillips, Mark Owen
Employment Howard Hymanson, Marian Derham
Family Tom Amlot
Fashion Sandi Simons
Film and TV production Medwyn Jones, Abigail Payne
Finance Alison Wilds
Information technology Mark Owen, Mark Phillips
Intellectual property Mark Owen
Interactive entertainment Paul Cairns, Mark Phillips
Litigation Andy Millmore
Music Paul Jones
Personal injury Daniel Marks
Property development and investment Robert Reilly, Leo Marino
Publishing Mark Phillips, Caroline Turner
Sponsorship Bob Mitchell
Sport Bob Mitchell
Tax Glen Atchison
Theatre and performing arts Neil Adleman
Trusts and personal tax Glen Atchison, Sarah Bridge
Venture capital Anthony Littner

Legal Developments by:
Harbottle & Lewis LLP

  • Account of profits v damages: when and why does it matter?

    Since 2007, Experience Hendrix LLC(Hendrix) and Times Newspapers Ltd (Times) have been litigating over the intellectual property rights (IPR) in a recording of a Jimi Hendrix concert that took place at the Royal Albert Hall in February 1969. In September 2006 Times distributed a free CD, or covermount, with each edition of The Sunday Times . A claim was issued against Times in March 2007 for infringement of copyright and performers’ rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. In March 2008 the High Court held that Times had infringed the IPR in the recording and Hendrix elected to have an inquiry as to damages in respect of that infringement. The case has given rise to some complex issues as to the basis for the quantification of damages, and the inquiry is due to be heard next year, but the case is also a reminder of more general considerations in relation to remedies in IPR cases, and why the basis for quantification of those remedies can have far reaching consequences for a successful claimant.

    - Harbottle & Lewis LLP

Legal Developments in the UK

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to