Archive for April, 2021

Technology industry M&A deals total $72.11bn in North America in March 2021

Friday, 30 April, 2021

The post Technology industry M&A deals total $72.11bn in North America in March 2021 appeared first on Verdict.

Technology industry M&A deals total $12.85bn in Europe in March 2021

Friday, 30 April, 2021

The post Technology industry M&A deals total $12.85bn in Europe in March 2021 appeared first on Verdict.

Middle East and Africa’s technology industry saw a rise of 93.55% in cross border deal activity during March 2021

Friday, 30 April, 2021

The post Middle East and Africa’s technology industry saw a rise of 93.55% in cross border deal activity during March 2021 appeared first on Verdict.

Technology industry big data M&A deals total $26.86bn globally in March 2021

Friday, 30 April, 2021

The post Technology industry big data M&A deals total $26.86bn globally in March 2021 appeared first on Verdict.

Woman jailed for attacking man with a learning disability in Harlesden

Friday, 30 April, 2021

Janelle James, 38, purposely targeted the 49-year-old victim on three separate occasions.

Former police officer jailed for National Action membership

Friday, 30 April, 2021

A former probationary police officer has been sentenced at the Old Bailey to a total of four years and four months in prison after he was exposed as a secret member of a neo-Nazi group.

Can the Law Sort out Political Lies?

Friday, 30 April, 2021

George Orwell once said that political language is “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”, and he wasn’t wrong. It seems like over the past decade, with the rise of tech and social media, that politicians and influential figures are finding it harder to hide behind their lies as the laymen call them out and demand answers when things go wrong. But how often are they reprimanded?

Sidney Powell – an appellate lawyer from Texas who joined former President Trump’s legal team – reportedly blamed Cuba, Venezuela, the Clinton Foundation, the billionaire George Soros and Antifa, a loosely defined left-wing movement, for somehow making votes for Trump in his presidential campaign late last year, disappear. She is now defending herself against a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit by arguing that “no reasonable person” could have mistaken her wild claims about election fraud as statements of fact.

Lawyers are not allowed to lie — to clients, courts or third parties. But once you get beyond deliberate false statements, the scope of the obligations to truth and integrity become less clear. If caught misleading others, legal professionals can be struck off, but “there are hard questions about when you must be forthcoming and when is it okay to engage in a little trickery”, as said by Bruce A. Green, director of the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics at Fordham Law School, to the ABA[1].  What lies ahead for Powell is yet to be determined but looking at the connection between politics and mistruths, it is often found like politicians get the easy way out.

Britain elected a prime minister who unlawfully shut down parliament to escape democratic scrutiny and has time and time again denied elements throughout the Brexit deal process. On the other side of the pond, Americans elected Donald Trump – who will be infamously known as the only president to be impeached twice – who had made more than 30,000 false or misleading claims during his term in the office. People want to put their trust in government – or so they would like to, in an ideal world, so why do powerful figures often get away with lies?

More recently, leaders of six opposing parties in the UK are accusing Boris Johnson of “a consistent failure to be honest”. They refer to two codes of conduct that UK politicians are supposed to follow: the Nolan principles and the Ministerial Code. Both stress the importance of being truthful[2], but much of the British political system rests on the assumption that politicians will choose to behave ‘honourably’, leaving fewer sanctions in place for those who defy such conventions.

Johnson has also recently been put against the wall after it was found out that he had been exchanging texts with businessman James Dyson about UK tax laws; this followed the Greensill scandal, where former prime minister David Cameron texted government ministers on behalf of the financial firm that was employing him. Some may have smelt potential fraud or the essence of friendly favours for the well-off, but nonetheless, Johnson stated he will “make no apology”, leaving the nation questioning fairness and transparency throughout the government. But in this case, no one broke the law.

Should lying be against the law?

Dr Alice Lilley from the Institute of Government told Channel4: “Misleading Parliament is a serious matter. The convention has always been that ministers who mislead Parliament are expected to resign, and this is set out in the Ministerial Code. But enforcing this convention is more complicated.

“It is ultimately up to the prime minister to decide what happens to ministers judged to have broken the Code.

“And Parliament has very few powers to punish a minister for misleading it.”

In the U.S., there are laws against making false and misleading claims, and against practices aimed at taking advantage of people.

Those laws, however, are intended to protect consumers from potentially dishonest businesses, not to protect voters from potentially dishonest politicians[3].

As reported in the LA Times, “Political speech receives greater protection because it may be difficult to ascertain if a politician is deliberately lying, whereas businesses are expected to know if they’re making false claims”.

So what can be done? We speak to Sailesh Mehta, a Criminal Barrister at Red Lion Chambers on the matter.

“A lying virus has spread across the body politic.  It has always been there, but a new, more toxic variant is threatening democratic life. It’s spread by sections of the media that have given up on fair reporting and a social media which fuels it”, says Mehta.

“Some supporters of our Prime Minister are concerned about his increasing use of lying as a political tool, honed during his days as a journalist – he was sacked on one occasion as a result (remember his misrepresentations about the Hillsborough disaster or about the European ban on bent bananas?).  Step forward the Brexit Bus lies as Exhibit A”, he expands.

Mehta explains how an infamous Russian propaganda technique known as “the firehose of falsehood”, relentlessly and rapidly fires off falsehoods in the knowledge that they will find a place in the subconscious of fear and prejudice, “…and it works”, he said.

Nonetheless, Mehta believes this torrent of political misinformation can be controlled with simple steps.  “It is not beyond the wit of lawyers to produce a workable set of laws to protect democracy from the flood.  If a teacher or a doctor lies to us, there are consequences.  Any product brought to the market must comply with a raft of legislation ensuring the seller tells the truth about it – the more potent the product, the greater the duty.  The same should apply to politicians”, he shares.

The first step would be to make it a criminal offence for a politician to make a public pronouncement which, at the time it was made, the politician knew or believed to be untrue (as proposed by “Compassion in Politics”).  “Initially, this could apply in the lead up to a local or national election and any referendum.  But then it should be widened.

“Another step would be to “give teeth” to the electoral Commission to prosecute, punish, ban and curtail individuals and parties who persist in demonstrably provable dishonesty”, expands Mehta.

A third measure should make social media giants such as Facebook and Twitter more personally liable for allowing political lies to be disseminated on their platforms.  “Again, it is fairly easy to draft legislation in this area, but few in Parliament have the stomach to take on such powerful behemoths.

“And fourthly, immunise the public against lies by teaching them to spot them – this is a long term, but necessary, education project”, explains Mehta.

The law has the potential to rule out political lies, but research has shown that it is only when people feel disenfranchised and excluded from a political system that they accept lies from a politician who claims to be a champion of the “people” against the “establishment” or “elite”[4]. So, I leave you with this question, would the law be enough?

[1] https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2018/december-2018/when-is-it-okay-for-a-lawyer-to-lie–/

[2] https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-are-the-consequences-for-politicians-who-lie

[3] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-01-05/column-trump-election-fraud-laws

[4] https://theconversation.com/why-people-vote-for-politicians-they-know-are-liars-128953

Lookalike Logos: Chanel Loses Trademark Dispute with Huawei

Friday, 30 April, 2021

Within intellectual property law, logo disputes are common and often high-profile. The latest involves the French luxury fashion house, Chanel, which has lost its trademark dispute against the Chinese technology company, Huawei. This trademark spat highlights how global fashion houses are keen for their brands to be viewed as synonymous with luxury, style and crucially, exclusivity. In an industry where knock-offs and counterfeit products are plentiful and often damaging to the ‘exclusivity’ aspect of brand identity, protecting logos can be the best way for a brand to maintain its identity and stem the flow of counterfeit goods. However, occasionally such trademark disputes can fail to deliver the desired outcome.

This particular case relates to an EU Trademark Application filed by Huawei in September 2017 for a figurative mark. Chanel opposed this Application in December 2017 on the basis that Huawei’s mark was similar to Chanel’s interlocking Cs logos. Chanel claimed that because of the similarity between the marks there was a likelihood of confusion and that the use of Huawei’s mark, without due cause, would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character of, or reputation established in, Chanel’s earlier marks through their use.

Both of the grounds of opposition relied on by Chanel were dependent on the EUIPO Opposition Division finding similarity between the marks. They did not see the similarities, and so Chanel’s opposition was rejected in its entirety. Chanel appealed the decision, but the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO dismissed the Appeal in November 2019 and upheld the Opposition Division’s finding that the marks were dissimilar.

We expect that global fashion houses will continue to be vigilant when it comes to protecting brand identity.

Chanel sought to annul this decision, and took the dispute to the General Court of the European Union, which promptly dismissed the action. In summarising the Board of Appeal’s analysis of the similarity between the marks, the General Court stressed that the marks must be compared in the form in which they are protected, in other words, exactly how they appear on the Register. Chanel had submitted that the similarity between the marks was more evident if Huawei’s mark was rotated by 90 degrees. The General Court dismissed this line of argument, stating that marks must be considered in the form in which they have been applied for, even if there is a chance that they will be rotated or viewed the other way up by consumers when used on the market.

Whilst the decision is a blow to the company, Chanel still has the option of appealing The General Court’s decision to the Court of Justice of the European Union, so this may not yet be the end of the matter. However, as this latest decision has again found that the marks were dissimilar, and as there are only limited and specific grounds of further appeal, Chanel’s options for proceeding with the appeal would seem to be limited.

This particular case highlights the necessity of overcoming the first hurdle of tests both for the likelihood of confusion, and a reputation claim – establishing that the marks are similar.  If the marks in question are not found to be similar, then an Opponent cannot succeed on either of these grounds of attack – even if they claim to have established a significant reputation in their earlier mark. We expect that global fashion houses will continue to be vigilant when it comes to protecting brand identity. However, as this case demonstrates, factors such as the need to compare logos in their registered form same and satisfy the relevant authority that the basic requirements are met, are critical to get the case off the ground.

 

The Legal Profession: The Importance of Industry in Driving Towards Equality

Friday, 30 April, 2021

Whether this is banking or retail, sport or technology, the role of the industry has perhaps never been so prominent in driving positive change in wider society than it is today.

So, what can the legal sector, our sector, do to make a difference?

First and foremost, listen. Listen to our stories. Listen to what we have had to overcome to get to where we are today. Start to understand our journey and the obstacles faced. Think about giving opportunities to people who can be role models for the next generation of lawyers from diverse backgrounds. And ask the question, will we have equal representation tomorrow if we do not have enough role models today?

Marketers and communications professionals often talk of ‘people-like-me-marketing’. Essentially building a campaign or strategy in the image of those who you want to reach. Obvious really. But what if there are no ‘people like me’? How can you reach those people who do not relate to the backgrounds or stories of the figureheads of our industry?

The answer is to provide platforms for them to tell their stories so you can listen, and hopefully learn a little more about the inherent prejudices that still exist in the corporate sector. Which is exactly what the legal sector needs to do too.

My story is typical of a ‘kiddigrant’ – a child of immigrants. In my early school years, I was incredibly aware that I was ‘different’ because of my colour. I was left out, excluded and at times, bullied. As a result, my father signed me up for self-defence lessons.

For a number of years, I did Karate, Aikido and Jujitsu with my dad’s wish being that I could protect myself if needed. And then one day, when I was 14 years old, someone did pick a fight with me at school. I remember it vividly. Children were standing around in a circle, heckling and watching, cheering. Nobody expected it but I did fight back.

And I won the fight.

I am telling you this not because I want to seem tough, but because what happened after this fight was that I suddenly found myself included and respected by my school peers in a way that had never happened before.  It taught me that “if people see you stick up for yourself, they respect you.”

My parents told me (regularly) that I would have to work twice as hard and be twice as good as anyone else to get the same chances in life. And like many immigrants to the UK, they pushed me towards such a prestigious profession, choice of doctor, lawyer or accountant. Because they felt that a high-status profession would offer me a buffer from social inequality. Something they saw as inevitable because of my race and my gender. To an extent, being a lawyer has been a shield against inequity, and that underlines the importance of industry in tackling social issues.

In my opinion, racism and prejudice in the workplace have not gone away, but rather it has evolved. The biggest challenge we have is creating awareness and opening eyes to the damage of ‘inherent affinities’.

The damage of the ‘people like me’ mindset.

We all know that business is as much about the relationships you build as it is the results you achieve. Sometimes even more so. At the heart of a strong relationship is because one person ‘clicks’ with another. Those relationships tend to be with ‘people like me’.

To that end, the opportunities, the progression, the promotions, the big deals, the big cases, will go to the lawyers or solicitors who have relationships with the senior partners. And those people tend still to be the white majority.

Indeed, the SRA’s data revealed that “both black and Asian lawyers are significantly underrepresented in mid to large size firms (those with six or more partners). The largest firms (50 plus partners) have the lowest proportion of BAME partners – only 8%.”

This is not direct insult-based racism. It is inherent, systemic and arguably more damaging. Until the worldwide focus on racism last summer, there had been a wide-spread denial that the playing field is not level, and consequently a total lack of effective action to level it.

And so once again, the role of the industry comes into the spotlight.

We can use our workplaces to raise awareness of inequality, we can make sure we give role models the opportunity to inspire, start analysing our own actions, start challenging our own inherent concept of ‘human nature’ and in turn using the economic power of industry to influence change in society as a result.

 

By Ritu Shirgaokar, Head of Legal, International and Regulatory, State Street and reboot. ambassador

 

“Apple has a monopoly” – EU accuses Cupertino of choking competition

Friday, 30 April, 2021

The post “Apple has a monopoly” – EU accuses Cupertino of choking competition appeared first on Verdict.