Charles BrabinCalled to the bar 2013 Junior
All aspects of Intellectual Property law, including patents, trade marks, passing off, copyright, designs, confidential information and contractual disputes involving intellectual property or technical subject matter.
Charles’ practice is in line with Chambers’ specialisms and he has been involved in cases spanning a broad range of IP areas, including patents, copyright, trade marks, passing off and registered and unregistered national and Community designs. The above has included proceedings in IPEC, the High Court and the Court of Appeal, as well as in the UKIPO in trade mark opposition and cancellation proceedings. In addition, he has worked on numerous matters which have not reached court across the spectrum of IP, extending to parallel imports, competition law, jurisdiction and remedies, Norwich Pharmacal relief, customs seizures and the concept of ‘image rights’.
Since taking tenancy, Charles also spent 5 months on secondment at EIP LLP, working on a High Court patent case, Align Technology, Inc. v. ClearCorrect, which was adjourned shortly before trial and subsequently settled.
Conversant v Huawei and ZTE  EWHC 14 (Pat)
Second junior counsel in High Court trial concerning infringement, validity and essentiality of multiple patents relating to mobile telecoms.
Conversant v Apple (ongoing)
Junior counsel in High Court case concerning infringement and validity of a patent relating to the remote control of electronic devices.
Dansac and Hollister v Medik (ongoing)
Junior counsel in High Court trade mark infringement action relating to parallel importation of medical products, including strike-out/summary judgment application ( EWHC 104 (Ch)) based on the recent CJEU judgment in Junek v Lohmann & Rauscher. This is believed to be the first case addressing the implications of this CJEU ruling, which affects the rights of trade mark owners and parallel importers, in particular the relevance of the ‘BMS criteria’, including the need to give notice.
Quest v PopSockets (settled in 2019, shortly before trial)
Junior counsel in High Court patent dispute relating to popular multifunctional accessories for sticking to the back of smartphones.
‘MODERN ROMANCE’ Trade Mark (2019)
Sole counsel in trade mark dispute (see IPO Decision O-226-19) between members of the 1980s Modern Romance pop band, concerning ownership of goodwill and the ability of respective members to register the band’s name as a trade mark.
Kallo v Whole Earth Sweetener Company (settled in 2019, shortly before trial)
Junior counsel in High Court trade mark and passing off dispute relating to household food products.
‘MINIKICKS’ Trade Mark (2018)
Sole counsel in Trade mark dispute, heard in the IPO (see O-826-18) between MiniKicks and Little Kickers, both of which offer football-based activities for children.
Huntapac Produce Ltd v Kettle Produce Ltd (2018)
Sole counsel for Kettle at UKIPO in trade mark dispute involving consolidated opposition and cancellation proceedings relating to marks for, inter alia, vegetables and vegetable derived-products.
Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd (t/a Allen & Hanburys) & Anor v Sandoz Ltd & Anor  EWCA Civ 227
Pupil involved in trade mark-related appeal dealing with the issues of joint tortfeasance and limitation period.
Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd (t/a Allen & Hanburys) & Anor v Sandoz Ltd  EWCA Civ 335
Pupil involved in trade mark appeal, focussing on the concept of colour marks, specifically colour combination marks and colour marks applied to objects.
Azumi Ltd v Zuma’s Choice Pet Products Ltd  EWHC 609 (IPEC)
Pupil involved in trade marks case focussed on claims of dilution and tarnishment by the operator of high-end Japanese restaurants against a dog food company and its sole director and shareholder, the latter appearing as a litigant in person at trial. Unjustified threats and the scope of the own name defence were also in issue.
Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co Ltd v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd  EWHC 395 (Pat)
Pupil involved in this trial, which followed the Court of Appeal’s judgment (Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co Ltd v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd  EWCA Civ 1) which held that ‘Arrow declarations’ – which state that a product was not novel or was obvious in patent law – can, as a matter of principle, be granted by the courts. It was held that in the circumstances of the case, the declaration sought should be granted. The facts of this case and motivation for the declaratory relief sought were different to those in Arrow, hence case has given rise to the term ‘Fujifilm Declaration’.
Edwards Life Sciences v Boston Scientific Scimed  EWHC 405 (Pat)
Pupil involved in patent case on the validity and infringement of patents for transcatheter heart valves.
Merck v Shionogi  EWHC 2989 (Pat)
Pupil involved in patent case on the validity and infringement of a patent covering a class of HIV integrase inhibitors, with issues focussed on Markush formulae, insufficiency and plausibility.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
2016-2017: Pupillage with Miles Copeland, Geoffrey Pritchard, Simon Malynicz and Dominic Hughes
2013-2014: Paralegal at leading London specialist IP firm
2012-2013: BPTC, College of Law
2011-2012: GDL, College of Law
2007-2011: DPhil Biochemistry (Genetics), University of Oxford
2004-2007: BA (Hons) Biological Sciences, First Class, University of Oxford
Prior to being called to the Bar, Charles studied Biological Sciences at undergraduate level, staying on to complete a DPhil in developmental genetics under Prof. Alison Woollard. Charles’ research involved using molecular biology, comparative genomics and bioinformatics to elucidate the mechanisms of stem cell development in the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans.
– Brabin, C. 2018. The Nagoya Protocol: the legal framework and challenges ahead. RHS Yearbook.
– Brabin, C. 2015. Toxic traces of autumn: will exDNA make it from the forest floor to the pharmacy shelf? Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review. April Issue.
– Brabin, C. 2014. Nagoya Protocol: searching for living gold. Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review. November Issue.
– Brabin, C. 2014. Intellectual property law in the realm of biology – striking the right balance. European Intellectual Property Review. 36:11
Beekeeping, sheep husbandry, photography, botany and the natural world in general.