Who? Andrew Lee, partner and head of intellectual property at IP firm Brandsmiths, London.
Why is he in the news? Acted in Hasbro Consumer Products v Sconnect Co Viet Nam, in which the maker of the Wolfoo animation was injuncted over infringements of the intellectual property rights and goodwill associated with animated children’s series Peppa Pig.
Thoughts on the case: ‘This demonstrates the ability of the English courts to deal effectively with intellectual property disputes that have a genuinely international and global dimension. Online infringement rarely respects national borders, and rights holders increasingly need remedies that reflect the realities of a digital marketplace. The court showed a willingness to grant practical, effective relief where conventional remedies would not adequately protect intellectual property rights.
‘The court accepted that the sample of videos relied upon was representative of the wider corpus of content. Having reached that conclusion, it ordered the removal of all Wolfoo videos from channels owned or controlled by the defendants, recognising that this was the only effective way to protect the claimant’s intellectual property rights. The judgment reflects a pragmatic approach to online enforcement, demonstrating the court’s willingness to grant remedies that address the commercial reality of persistent online infringement rather than limiting relief to individual acts of infringement.’
Dealing with the media: ‘The interest has been remarkable. Peppa Pig is recognised around the world, so the judgment has attracted attention far beyond the legal profession. My focus has been on explaining why the decision matters rather than simply discussing the outcome.’
Why become a lawyer? ‘It was never a childhood ambition. I chose law because it seemed the most interesting subject to study at university, and it grew from there.’
Career high: ‘Appearing before the Supreme Court on three major intellectual property cases has been a career highlight. It was particularly rewarding to be successful in Lifestyle Equities v Amazon and to see the court endorse the arguments we advanced on trade mark similarity and post-sale confusion in Iconix. Those experiences are ones I’ll always remember.’
Career low: ‘One of the toughest moments was losing Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed in the Supreme Court. The court adopted a new approach to accessory liability that neither party had advanced, fundamentally changing an area of law that had been settled for decades. It was disappointing, but it also reinforced the fact that, at the highest level, the law can change in unexpected ways.’
No comments yet