The Technology Platform

The regulatory burden on banks has increased massively over the past 10 years, both in terms of prudential measures – higher capital and liquidity requirements being the most obvious – and regulatory scrutiny of bank-customer relationships.

The CMA has published a Green Claims Code, which aims to help businesses understand and comply with their existing obligations under consumer protection law when making environmental claims - in anticipation of a formal review due to start in 2022.

A key Brexit-related deadline in relation to trade mark and design protection – 30 September 2021 - is approaching.

The UK's National Security and Investment Act 2021 has the potential to have a significant impact on transactions and investments in relation to UK companies and entities carrying on business in the UK.

Recent developments in relation to the Unified Patent Court (UPC) have led to the UPC Preparatory Committee issuing an updated roadmap, estimating that it will open its doors for business 'around mid-2022'

In its recent decision, the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) was asked to consider the liability of YouTube and a file-hosting and sharing platform (Cyando) in relation to infringements of copyright works committed by users on their respective platforms.

The Supreme Court has given an important decision clarifying the effect of termination of a contract on the recovery of liquidated damages.

The EU General Court has had its first opportunity to consider the approach to sound mark applications since the change of approach in 2017, which led the way for the acceptance of MP3 and MP4 files.

The Court of Appeal has given its judgment in Sky v SkyKick, providing welcome clarity and reassurance to brand owners in relation to their brand protection and enforcement strategies.

In a judgment handed down on 3 June 2021, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) has redefined the test that EEA courts must apply when establishing whether EU database rights have been infringed. In what appears to be a significant departure from existing case law, in addition to the defendant having extracted or re-utilised all or a substantial part of the contents of the database without the owner's permission, a claimant will now also need to show that the infringing acts caused “significant detriment” to the database maker’s investment.

June saw the publication of a formal “Opinion” by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) on the data protection and privacy implications use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology. It only deals with the use of the technology in "public places", but it defines this term so widely (“any physical space outside a domestic setting, whether publicly or privately owned”) that effectively anywhere except within the home will be covered. It is essential reading for anyone using, or considering the use of, such technology. Almost concurrently, the combined European Union Data Protection Authorities (of which the ICO is, of course, no longer a member) issued an Opinion going even further, and calling for a general ban on the use of facial recognition in publicly accessible areas.