Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 12 SEPTEMBER 2018

Recent Changes To UK Trade Secrecy Laws Explained

UDL Intellectual Property
Explore more from UDL Intellectual Property

The EU Trade Secrets Directive (2016/943) required EU member states to introduce laws, regulations and administrative provisions to establish a minimum level of protection for trade secrets.

European UnionIntellectual Property
Alan Fiddes
Alan Fiddes

The EU Trade Secrets Directive (2016/943) required EU member states to introduce laws, regulations and administrative provisions to establish a minimum level of protection for trade secrets. Specifically, it required individual member states to ensure that remedies were available to the victims of a breach of their rights and to ensure court procedures are in place to protect secrecy while such protection is being sought. />

Whether English law and civil procedure needed to be amended to comply with the Directive is open to debate. Our existing common law relating to breach of confidence and contract already provides relatively good protection for trade secrets and the Civil Procedure Rules give judges a wide discretion to impose both interim and final orders to effectively enforce those rights.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

High Court Clarifies The Limits Of Copyright Claims Against Online Marketplaces

The UK High Court has delivered a landmark ruling on online marketplace liability, dismissing Shein's copyright infringement claims against Temu and clarifying when platforms can be held responsible for third-party content. The judgment examines the boundaries of copyright ownership in complex supply chains and establishes important precedents for how marketplace operators should respond to infringement allegations.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

Samsung Ordered To Pay The Swatch Group US$11.6 Million In Damages For Trade Mark Infringement

The High Court has awarded the Swatch Group US$11.6 million in negotiation damages against Samsung for trade mark infringements involving watch face apps on the Galaxy App store. Rejecting both parties' extreme valuations of US$170 million and US$301, the court established important principles for assessing damages when brand owners don't license their marks and no comparable market royalties exist.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Mishcon de Reya LLP
Mishcon de Reya LLP
Article

The Sound Of Ownership: Why AI Voice Cloning Is Raising New IP Questions

As AI voice cloning technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and accessible, the Save Our Voices Now campaign calls for statutory rights allowing individuals to own and control their voice as intellectual property. This article examines whether existing UK law sufficiently protects one of our most personal and recognisable attributes, exploring copyright, trade marks, passing off, and the practical steps individuals and businesses can take.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Ashfords LLP
Ashfords LLP
Article

IP Right Infringement By Re-posting Of Photographs On Social Media – Assessing Damages, Calculation Of Interest And Costs Recovery In The IPEC

A copyright infringement case in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court examines how damages should be calculated when a defendant used thousands of photographs from Max Power magazine on social media to build a following and promote commercial events. The court's decision provides important guidance on determining reasonable licence fees for social media use and the application of IPEC's costs cap provisions.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
RPC
RPC