The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
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
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
"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
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'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 2014
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2014
ITV Broadcasting v TVCatchup Ltd [2011] EWHC 1874 (Pat)
Case Summary | Judgment | 18 July 2011
In a copyright action relating to internet streaming, James Mellor QC and Jessie Bowhill acted for the claimant broadcasters (ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5) in a trial against TVCatchup Ltd, represented by Martin Howe QC and James Whyte. Charlotte May appeared for the Secretary of State. The defendant operated a service that (despite its name) provided live streams of various television channels over the internet to its users, who were located in the UK and had television licences. The claimants alleged that this constituted a communication to the public of their broadcasts and various film works included in those broadcasts, and also alleged infringement of copyright by transient copying in TVCatchup’s servers and by display on its users’ computer screens. TVCatchup argued that the secondary legislation that had purported to amend s.20 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was invalid in so far as it made it an infringement to communicate broadcasts to the public, that the defendants’ acts did not in any event constitute a communication to the public, that there was a defence to transient copying under s.28A, and that there was a complete defence to streaming of the public service channels by virtue of s.73. The Secretary of State intervened to argue that the amending regulations were properly made. The trial was heard by Floyd J from 13-17 June 2011.
Reported at [2011] FSR 40.