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:

Mark Owen

Tel:
Work +44 20 7667 5000
Email:
Harbottle & Lewis LLP

Work Department

Intellectual property

Position

Partner and head of intellectual property group and joint head of the firm’s on-line commerce group; undertakes a broad range of IP and technology contentious and non-contentious matters, data protection and other regulatory advice for commercial activities online.

Career

Trained Clifford Chance; qualified 1989 (UK), 1992 (US); worked for Brown & Bain, Silicon Valley, litigating hi-tech disputes before returning to Clifford Chance, 1992-93; senior associate Harbottle & Lewis 1998; partner 1999; regularly speaks at IP and e-commerce conferences in the UK and US, and provides commentaries for issues in this area.

Member

Law Society IP Committee; the California Bar; Intellectual Property Lawyers Association; International Trade Mark Association (committee member); Society for Computers and Law; .

Education

Exeter School; King’s College, London (LLB).

Leisure

Family.

Practice Areas

Electronic commerce; Information technology; Intellectual property

Back to index

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 worldwide

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