'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
'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
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
"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
'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
"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
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
Alfrank Designs Ltd v Exclusive (UK) Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 1372 (IPEC)
Case Summary | Judgment | 18 May 2015
Isabel Jamal represented the First Defendant (‘Exclusive’) as sole counsel in this inquiry as to damages held in the IPEC. It concerned EU and UK unregistered designs in marble tables.
The Claimant claimed that, for each sale of an infringing marble table by Exclusive to a retailer, the Claimant would have made a sale of one of its marble tables to the relevant retailer (including the Second Defendant). HHJ Hacon found that the Claimant’s case on causation was not made out in relation to sales by Exclusive to the majority of its retailers. However, some sales would have been made by the Claimant to its own retailers had Exclusive’s tables not been on the market. On the extreme rough and ready end of the spectrum this was found to be 20% of the sales made by Exclusive.
HHJ Hacon found a reasonable royalty of just less than 25% was due on the remaining tables and the convoyed goods sold with them.
Isabel Jamal was instructed by DMH Stallard LLP.