The Legal 500

Hewitsons

SHAKESPEARE HOUSE, 42 NEWMARKET ROAD, CAMBRIDGE, CB5 8EP, ENGLAND
Tel:
Work 01223 461155
Fax:
Fax 01223 316511
DX:
133155 CAMBRIDGE 8
Email:
Web:
www.hewitsons.com

Mark Elmslie

Tel:
Work 01223 461155
Email:
Hewitsons

Work Department

Technology group.

Position

Head of the firm’s contentious intellectual property group; specialises in all forms of intellectual property litigation, including patents, designs, trade marks, passing off and branding, copyright, confidential information actions, and domain name disputes; represents clients across a range of industries, including fashion, packaging, computer games, medical technology, novelty toys and products, agriculture, household and garden products, and retail. He also acts, or has acted for, a number of patent and trade mark attorneys in defending claims of professional negligence. He has represented clients in substantial intellectual property cases both here and in Australia, including multinational litigation involving dual proceedings in the UK and US; represented defendants in the ‘One in a Million’ domain name litigation.

Career

Trained Robyn Croydon, Adelaide; qualified 1982; various positions, Adelaide and London 1983-1990; assistant, Pettman Smith, London 1990-95; assistant, Wilde Sapte, London 1995-97; partner, Finers Stephens Innocent 1997-2000; special counsel, Minter Ellison, Melbourne 2001-02; partner, Hewitsons 2002 to date. Publications include: ‘Passing off and Image Marketing in the UK’ (with Margaret Lewis, EIPR vol 4 issue 8, 1992); ‘Summary judgment in UK Copyright Cases: LA Gear v Hi-Tech Sports’ (EIPR vol 14 issue 11); ‘Disclosure requirements in UK litigation – the Ziff case’ (EIPR vol 15 issue 9); ‘The New UK Trade Marks Bill’ (EIPR vol 16 issue 3); ‘The One in a Million case – Opinion’ (Entertainment Law Review vol 11, 1998); ‘Threats Actions in UK Trade Mark Cases’ (Managing Intellectual Property, September 1999); ‘“Clarity Lost” The Arsenal and Reed case’ (Trademark World, February 2003); author (with Simon Portman of Hewitsons) of ‘Intellectual Property: The Lifeblood of Your Company’ (Chandos Publishing I, 2006). Authors the chapter on Infringement in the Community Trade Marks Handbook published by Sweet & Maxwell. Regularly writes and speaks on all aspects of intellectual property law, particularly litigation.

Education

Kings College, Adelaide; University of Adelaide (1981 LLB); University of London (1994 LLM).

Leisure

Family, music, swimming, reading, golf, wine.

Back to index

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Update on EU Sanctions against Russia

    On 6 December 2014, Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 entered into force. This regulation is the latest in a series of regulations regarding "sectoral sanctions" against Russia.
  • Slovakia: Checkmate? New law regulates protection of employees when blowing the whistle

    So far, in Slovakia there has not been in force any regulation specifically addressing whistleblowing situations in which employees report wrongdoings, such as the commission of a crime which they learnt about in connection with the performance of their employment, work or function. Certain partial aspects related to whistleblowing have been regulated by the country's data protection, criminal and labour laws. read more
  • Croatia: A look at the Strategic Investment Projects Act One Year after Implementation

    Croatia's sixth consecutive year of recession
  • AT: Transparency International – Release of 20th annual Corruption Perceptions Index

    On 3 December 2014, Transparency International, the leading civil society organisation fighting corruption worldwide, released its 20th annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). The index draws on surveys covering the views of business people, provides expert assessments, and ranks 175 countries by the perceived levels of corruption in their public sectors. The scale ranges from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 100 (perceived to be very clean). The CPI can be found under the following link .  read more...
  • Review of the Constitutional Court Decision on the Cancellation of Article 42/1 (C) of Law No. 556

    Introduction
  • Transfer and Granting of Rights under Turkish Petroleum Law: Freedom of Contract versus Regulatory R

    Especially after the drop in oil prices the companies that are in early stage of their investments have begun to get position aiming to turn into an advantageous investment and started to look to what extent the regulations allow them to transfer and grant their rights under Turkish Petroleum Law. This may be deemed also as an exit strategy for some from operational perspective as it parallels with the tendency around the world and has direct relation with oil prices. 
  • Contracting the Petroleum Operations under Turkish Petroleum Law: Scope and Limits of Liability on P

    As exception to liberty of contracting and unlike a number of other industries, Turkey's petroleum industry imposes certain obligations to petroleum right owners in contracting the conduct of the petroleum operations.  At the first glance this seems that it aims to strengthen the management of hazards by enhancing the safety however the liability imposed to petroleum right owners in case of contracting the operations still remains unclear in terms of limitation.
  • Liabilities of Primary Employer and Subcontractors in case of a Collusive Contract

    Growing economy and competitive environment in Turkey has been leading companies to seek more profitable ways to conduct their business. Therefore companies have chosen to engage in subcontracts for the purpose of reducing their costs. Yet, to serve such purpose, at some point companies have started utilizing subcontracts to limit employees' entitlements through collusive contracts. Labor Law numbered 4857 (the " Labor Law ") and Bylaw on Subcontractor dated September 27, 2008 (the " Bylaw ") regulate which services or works may be subcontracted and strictly prohibit collusive contracts. According to Article 2/7 of the Labor Law, a collusive subcontract is considered null and void. Such nullity of subcontract automatically results in primary employers being redefined as main and sole employers of employees assigned to subcontracted work. Consequently, primary employers are solely responsible for employees' rights arising from subcontracted works and technically, primary employers would not have the option to recourse to subcontractors in order to claim any compensation due to their sole responsibility.
  • Boundaries of the Turkish Competition Authority’s Investigative Powers

    Boundaries of the Turkish Competition Authority's Investigative Powers: Case Handlers vs. Personal Property
  • Potential Consequences of Acquisitions of Minority Shareholdings under Turkish Competition Law

    The acquisition of a minority shareholding may come under the Turkish Competition Authority's (" Authority ") scrutiny in two ways, mainly: 1) it may result in de facto or de jure sole or joint control, depending on the rights possessed by the minority shareholders and/or shareholding structures and past voting patterns; and 2) it may not result in control but in cross-shareholding structures amongst competitors in a concentrated market which may raise questions about coordinated effects. This article discusses the circumstances under which the abovementioned consequences may arise under Turkish competition law with references to the relevant legislation and the most noteworthy cases in this regard.