"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
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2014
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
"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
Antonio Mu?oz y Cia SA v Frumar Ltd Case C-253-00
Case Summary | Judgment | 17 October 2002
EC Regulations on fruit varieties - DNA technology - Direct applicability of Regulations by civil action in member state. Action brought by a grape producer to enforce compliance by a competitor with EC Regulations on the common organisation of the market in table grapes. The case involved the application of DNA technology to identifying the genetic composition of the grapes in order to prove that they were in fact of different variety from that claimed by the competitor. The trial judge (Laddie J, [1999] FSR 872) accepted the DNA and other evidence and held that the defendants had breached the regulations by applying the wrong variety names to grapes which they had imported and sold. However, he held that a breach of the Regulations did not give rise to a civil right of action on the part of a competitor such as the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal referred the case to the ECJ, which ruled that such a breach does give rise to a civil right of action in the part of a competing producer such as Muñoz.