8 NEW SQUARE

020 7405 4321

Mark Platts-Mills QC

 


Year of call: 1975
Year of silk: 1995
Position: Head of Chambers

After reading engineering and economics at Balliol College, Oxford, Mark Platts-Mills QC joined the pre-eminent patent and intellectual property set at the time, the Chambers of Mr. Thomas Blanco White at Francis Taylor Building. He has since specialised in all aspects of intellectual property including patents, trade marks, passing off, registered designs, copyright, design right, technical trade secrets and commercial matters with a technical content. Mark was characterised as a “real fighter” in Chambers Directory 2010 and indeed, Ultraframe v Eurocell is prominent among his recent highlights as one of very few fully fought out inquiries as to damages in a patent action. He has also recently represented the applicant for revocation of a UK patent which, if upheld, would have covered the ubiquitous USB memory stick (Trek v MSystems). In other highlights, Mark appeared for the defendant in the leading database right case (British Horse Racing Board v William Hill), and for the claimant in a successful trade mark infringement trial concerning tree shaped air fresheners (Julius Samann v Tetrosyl). In addition, he successfully represented the defendant in a design rights case relating to helmets for the rescue services (Helmet Integrated Systems v Mitchell Tunnard). He is currently representing the claimants in the trade secrets case Vestergaard Frandsen v Bestnet.

Clients can expect to benefit from Mark’s long experience encompassing an extremely diverse range of cases, which has given him a lasting appetite for the most challenging of disputes.

EU Law

Antonio Munoz Y CIA SA and Anr v Frumar Ltd and Anr, 1999

The Defendants imported grapes from Spain under various variety names. The Claimant alleged that the grapes grown in Spain infringed local variety rights. The Claimant had, as yet, not managed to establish those rights in Spain. It was unclear whether this was due to defects in the Spanish procedure or defects in the Claimant’s case. The Claimant resorted to an allegation that the Defendant had acted in breach of a Council Regulation requiring table grapes sold in the EEA to bear the correct variety name. The Judge held that there was no cause of action available to the Claimant under the regulation. The ECJ has subsequently decided on a reference by the Court of Appeal in this action that the regulation may give rise to personal rights of action. Frumar were not represented in the reference or in the Court of Appeal.

  • What the Directories Say
  • "He is phenomenal at cross-examination; equally charming and ruthless in his line of questioning."
    Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2017

    "Adept in all areas of IP"
    Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2016

    "Formidable in court"
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2016

    "Recommended for all aspects of IP law."
    Legal 500 (Intellectual Property) 2015

    " Head of chambers, he brings an impressive amount of experience to cases." " Highly versatile and a good street fighter"
    Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2015