Mr Douglas Campbell > Chambers of Andrew Waugh QC > London, England > Lawyer Profile

Chambers of Andrew Waugh QC
Three New Square
3 NEW SQUARE, LINCOLN'S INN
LONDON
WC2A 3RS
England
Douglas Campbell photo

Position

Barrister specialising in all aspects of intellectual property and information technology law. Silk 2016, Appointed Recorder in 2010, Deputy High Court Judge in 2015. Former member of Attorney-General’s Panel of Junior Counsel, 2010-2015.Has acted for many leading companies in the electronics, telecommunications, chemical, pharmaceutical, technology, consumer products and other industries. Recent UK cases include Freshasia Foods v Lu [2019] EWHC 638 (Ch) (confidential information, restrictive covenants) Frank v Nike [2018] EWHC 1893 (Ch), [2018] EWCA Civ 497 (trade mark, interim injunction, social media); AP Racing v Alcon Components [2018] EWCA Civ 1420 (patent); Cantel Medical v Arc [2018] EWHC 345 (Pat) (patent, medical devices, designs); London Taxi v Frazer Nash [2018] FSR 7, CA (shape trade mark); Icescape v Ice World [2017] EWHC 42 (patent, threats); Moet Hennessey v Polistas [2016] EWHC 3114 (“Veuve Clicquot” trade mark); Comic v Fox [2016] FSR 31, CA (validity of a series of trade marks); [2016] FSR 30, CA (trade mark infringement); Teva v Boehringer Ingelheim [2015] EWHC 2963 (patent, pharmaceuticals); Warner-Lambert v Actavis [2015] EWHC 72 (Pat); Phil & Ted’s Most Excellent Buggy Co v TFK Trends for Kids [2014] EWCA Civ 469, [2013] EWPCC 21 (patent); Comic Enterprise v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation [2014] ETMR 51, [2014] FSR 35, ‘Glee’ television programme (trade mark and passing off); Danisco v Novozymes [2011] EWHC 3288, CA, [2013] EWHC 483 (patent, judgment rate interest);  Vector v Glatt [2007] EWCA Civ 805, CA (added matter, patent); Coflexip v Stena Offshore [2004] FSR 34, CA (estoppel, damages); Stena v Irish Ferries [2003] RPC 668, CA (special defences to patent infringement); Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard [2007] FSR 34 16, CA (employee’s duties); Dyson v Qualtex [2006] RPC 31, CA (design right); Compensation Specialists v Compensation Claims Service [2003] EWCA Civ 1108, CA (franchising); D Green & Co v Regalzone [2002] ETMR 22, CA (descriptive use of trade marks); Thermos v Aladdin [2002] FSR 11 (CA) (registered design).

Career

Called 1993, Inner Temple; contributing author to 16th, 17th & 18th Editions of‘Terrell on Patents’ (Sweet & Maxwell, 2006,2011,2016).

Languages

Japanese, French.

Memberships

IP Bar Association; Chancery Bar Association.

Education

Dollar Academy, Dollar; Hertford College, Oxford (1988 First Class Hons with Distinction in Quantum Chemistry); City University, London (1992 Diploma in Law with Distinction); Inner Temple Major scholarship. Pegasus Scholar to Mallesons Stephen Jacques, Melbourne, Australia, in 1996.

Lawyer Rankings

London Bar > IT and telecoms

Within: IT and telecoms (excluding regulatory) - Leading Silks -

Douglas Campbell QC



Three New Square



He is a class act and a strong advocate.

London Bar > Intellectual property

Within: Leading Silks -

Douglas Campbell QC



Three New Square



He is intelligent and quick-witted and provides effective and high-quality advice.

Three New Square is a ‘pre-eminent IP set‘ which ‘stands out for its service levels‘ and includes ‘go-to barristers for difficult patent cases‘ across all areas of technology; members are also well versed in trade mark and passing off litigation and copyright and design right matters, particularly in fashion, music, entertainment, and literature. In recent work highlights, Tom Mitcheson QC appeared in the Supreme Court in a high-profile dispute between Warner-Lambert against Actavis relating to Warner-Lambert’s painkiller, Lyrica. Meanwhile, in the Court of Appeal, Joe Delaney successfully represented Regeneron in a patent dispute against Kymab concerning the breeding and use by Kymab of genetically modified mice for the production of human antibodies. In trade mark litigation, Douglas Campbell QC was instructed by Frank Industries in an infringement claim brought against Nike.