"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
"Fantastic roster of talent" and recommended for being "very modern, forward-thinking and providing sound commercial advice" as well as offering instructing solicitors "a very broad skill set in the soft IP space."
Chambers & Partners 2017
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
"8 New Square is undoubtedly one of the leading sets for trade mark and copyright cases within the media and entertainment sphere, so much so that stablemates here frequently find themselves pitted against each other in major cases."
Chambers & Partners (Media & Entertainment) 2014
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2014
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
Bambino Mio Ltd v Cazitex NV [2009] EWCA Civ 922
Case Summary | Judgment | 29 July 2009
This action involved a claim for Section 10(2) TMA 1994 trade mark infringement in relation to the Defendant’s, Cazitex’s, reusable nappies. The UK trade mark (registered for inter alia nappies) in issue was ‘Bambino Mio’, the potentially infringing mark ‘Bambineo’. After the High Court trial the claim was dismissed, the Judge finding in favour of the Defendant, with a finding of no trade mark infringement. The Claimant appealed and the Appeal was dismissed with the Court of Appeal judgment reported at [2010] ETMR 6. Daniel Alexander QC and Iona Berkeley were Counsel for the Defendant/Respondent, Cazitex, in the Court of Appeal. Iona Berkeley was Counsel for the Defendant in the High Court proceedings.