Category: Blog

Following lockdown, a host of businesses had to close and many looked to insurers to cover their losses.

But many insurers disputed the claims, arguing policies were never meant to cover such unprecedented restrictions.

The test case was brought by the Financial Conduct Authority and had the potential to affect 370,000 mostly small businesses.

The insurers can appeal against the decision. Policyholders should hear from their insurer within seven days.

“Today’s judgement is a significant step in resolving the uncertainty being faced by policyholders.

“Coronavirus is causing substantial loss and distress to businesses and many are under immense financial strain to stay afloat.”

The Judgment handed down in the FCA’s case on Business Interruption Policies has now changed the game for both, insurers and businesses.

Under the new ruling many businesses that suffered losses (some substantial) due to COVID-19, will be able to make and claim under the Business Interruption part of their insurance policy.

This is because the  court ruled that the ‘disease’ and/or ‘denial of access’ clauses  in some business interruption policies should have meant they were covered.

 As with all court decisions of this kind, the wording of each policy could lead to different outcomes, so there are still likely to be insurers who reject claims made by their insured where the wording of the policy does not match the wording of the policies considered by the court when making its determination.

As the long term effect of this decision. There will still be some litigation over policies with certain wording, and I suspect insurance premiums may be increased going forward (someone has to pay for all these claims!).

If you have any questions on the above or litigation in general, please contact Michael Shapiro, Head of GSC’s Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution, directly on: mshapiro@gscsolicitors.com or 0207 822 2246.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54158830

© 2020 GSC Solicitors LLP. All rights reserved. GSC grants permission for the browsing of this material and for the printing of one copy per person for personal reference. GSC’s written permission must be obtained for any other use of this material. This publication has been prepared only as a guide to provide readers with general information on recent legal developments. It is not formal legal advice and should not be relied on for any purpose. You should not act or refrain from acting based on the information contained in this document without obtaining specific formal advice from suitably qualified advisors.

British National (Overseas) passports were issued to people in Hong Kong by the UK before the transfer of the territory to Chinese sovereignty in 1997.

Presently, a BNO passport holder is usually granted 6 months leave to enter on arrival in the UK but does not have the right to study, live and work in the UK.

The British government has indicated that if China implements the proposed national security legislation, the UK will allow BNO passport holders to come to the UK and to apply to work and study for extendable periods of 12 months from within the UK together with a pathway to full British citizenship upon the completion on the required residency period.

The UK could offer British National (Overseas) passport holders in Hong Kong a path to UK citizenship if China does not suspend plans for a security law in the territory, UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab says.

There are 300,000 BNO passport holders in Hong Kong who have the right to visit the UK for up to six months without a visa.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52842303

If you have any questions or concerns, contact Hateem Ali, Head of Corporate & Private Immigration, directly on hali@gscsolicitors.com or 020 7822 2209.

© 2020 GSC Solicitors LLP. All rights reserved. GSC grants permission for the browsing of this material and for the printing of one copy per person for personal reference. GSC’s written permission must be obtained for any other use of this material. This publication has been prepared only as a guide to provide readers with general information on recent legal developments. It is not formal legal advice and should not be relied on for any purpose. You should not act or refrain from acting based on the information contained in this document without obtaining specific formal advice from suitably qualified advisors.

Today WIPO – the World Intellectual Property Organization – launched a new service called WIPO PROOF to assist creators to evidence and prove the date at which certain assets were in existence. Whilst there are a large range of possible uses, this service may be especially useful in relation to copyright materials, providing authors with an easy and verifiable method by which to confirm that a work was in existence at a certain date.

The initial costs of the registration of each document are low and so this service should be available to a large number of creators.  However, the requirement to have a WIPO account in order to purchase the tokens that are used for the registration will be a barrier to individuals accessing the service themselves.

WIPO PROOF is an easy-to-use global, online service that rapidly generates tamper-proof evidence proving that a digital file existed at a specific point in time, and that it has not been altered since that time. The service creates a WIPO PROOF token, a date- and time-stamped digital fingerprint of the file or data, which can be used as evidence in a legal dispute. WIPO PROOF tokens can be purchased one at a time for a modest fee, or in bundles of multiple tokens at reduced rates valid during a two year period.

If you would like to know more about the system, please visit the WIPO website (https://wipoproof.wipo.int/wdts/) or contact Justin Goldspink on 0207 822 2244 / jgoldspink@gscsolicitors.com or Ross Waldram on 0207 822 2236 / rwaldram@gscsolicitors.com on any Intellectual Property-related issues.

© 2020 GSC Solicitors LLP. All rights reserved. GSC grants permission for the browsing of this material and for the printing of one copy per person for personal reference. GSC’s written permission must be obtained for any other use of this material. This publication has been prepared only as a guide to provide readers with general information on recent legal developments. It is not formal legal advice and should not be relied on for any purpose. You should not act or refrain from acting based on the information contained in this document without obtaining specific formal advice from suitably qualified advisors.

International students will be allowed to stay in the UK for two years after graduation to find a job, under new proposals announced by the Home Office.

The move reverses a decision made in 2012 by then-Home Secretary Theresa May that forced overseas students to leave four months after finishing a degree.

International students bring significant economic contributions to the UK economy and perhaps more importantly  directly to the local economy but since 2012 owing to the lack of a post-study work opportunities in the UK this meant that UK universities were at a  competitive disadvantage in attracting those students as compared to other countries, which afforded international students such a pathway into work following the completion of their studies.

The re-introduction of the Post Study Work migrant category for international students marks an important U-turn on one of the key provisions of the “hostile environment” policies introduced by the previous governments.

Perhaps next on the list may be the reintroduction of the Highly Skilled Migrant category? We shall wait and see.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49655719

If you have an inquiry on any immigration-related matters, please contact Hateem Ali directly on: 0207 82222 or hali@gscsolicitors.com

Designer Erik Brunetti’s line has been given a green light after justices agree ban blocks free expression. Justices came to that conclusion after the designer Erik Brunetti’s fashion line ran into trouble with the US patent and trademark office (PTO), which registers product names. Brunetti was seeking a trademark for his brand, FUCT, which he says is pronounced letter by letter. (The brand’s Twitter bio suggests it stands for “friends U can’t trust.) But the trademark office wasn’t thrilled with the branding and turned down Brunetti’s registration, under a law banning “immoral or scandalous matter”. In the words of PTO authorities, FUCT was “a total vulgar”.

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court gave its decision on the registration of the FUCT brand as a trade mark in respect of clothing.

The applicant had applied to register the name of its existing clothing brand FUCT as a trade mark in the US but the initial application was refused by the USPTO on the grounds that the proposed mark was scandalous and immoral. The decision was challenged by the applicant on the basis that the ban on registering the mark was an impediment to his free speech. In giving its the decision, the US Supreme Court accepted that the trade mark will be read (at least by some) as a reference to a swear word, but by deciding which trade marks where immoral the USPTO was discriminating on the “basis of viewpoint”. This follows a similar decision of  the US Supreme Court in relation to disparaging marks given in relation to an application of “The Slants” made by the Asian-American front man of the band of the same name.

The case can be contrasted with the registration of FCUK by French Connection, which was challenged in 2006 on the grounds that it was contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality. In that case the UKIPO decided that a registration of the word ‘Fuck’ would not generally be acceptable to the public (and the use of that word was also prohibited by the Advertising Standards Agency).  That point was not challenged before Arnold QC (acting as an Appointed Person) and was consistent with the earlier rejection of the trade mark ‘FOOK’. However, the registration of FCUK was allowed on the basis that it was not itself a swear word.  Whilst it could be used in a way which evoked the swear word (and the applicant had used it in such a manner), this did not mean that the mark should necessarily be revoked.  The USPTO also allowed FCUK to be registered as a mark in the US.

The latest decision from the US Supreme Court is a further relaxation of the rules around the registration of contentious and scandalous marks in the US.  It is doubtful that any trade mark registry will now be flooded with marks containing profanities, but brands seeking to maintain a rebellious edge will no doubt see how far the boundaries can be pushed not only in the US but in the UK and other countries.

For any IP and/or trademark-related advice, please contact Ross Waldram on 0207 822 2222 or rwaldram@gscsolicitors.com

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/24/fuct-fashion-supreme-court-strikes-down-trademark-office-ruling

Unlimited numbers of EU migrants will still be able to come to Britain for up to three years even if there is no deal, the Government admitted last night.

Sajid Javid said that citizens from the bloc would be allowed to enter the UK to visit, work or study after Brexit day on March 29.

It seems as if every day we have a new Home Office announcement. Here is today’s latest.

EU citizens coming after March 29 will be granted European Temporary Leave to Remain. This new policy does not apply to EU citizens in the UK before Brexit, whose rights to live and work will be protected by the EU Settlement Scheme.  The initial Temporary Leave will be granted for three years and EU migrants wanting to stay more than three years will need to apply again under new immigration rules which will come into force on January 1, 2021.

As for family members of EU citizens, with this new form of leave they will need to apply in advance for a family permit.

If you have a question, please contact GSC’s Head of Corporate and Private Immigration, Hateem Ali, at: hali@gscsolicitors.com or 0207 822 2222

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6642389/Sajid-Javid-confirms-EU-migrants-able-enter-UK-three-years-Brexit.html