Student ID: 201752950

Question 1
The statement that Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decisions have changed
the general principles of copyright originality in the UK and imported an understanding from
European Union (EU) system is a complex one. The CJEU rulings undoubtedly introduced a
more stringent approach, emphasizing intellectual creation. However, the extend of this
influence was not absolute, with United Kingdom (UK) courts retaining discretion and
adapting the new standard to their own legal framework. Post-Brexit, the future of
originality in the UK remains uncertain, but the CJEU’s impact is likely to continue shaping
the landscape for some time. This essay will critically assess whether there is a clarity and
consistency based on how the UK courts interpret ‘Author’s own intellectual creation’ the
principle harmonized originality in EU.
Pre-Brexit Landscape
Before Brexit, the UK adhered to the EU copyright framework, and CJEU held binding
authority in UK courts. This created a situation where CJEU interpretations of originality,
heavily influenced by the “author’s own intellectual creation” standard, began to permeate
UK jurisprudence. Landmark cases like Infoaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades
Forening1 and Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo! UK Ltd 2introduced more stringent definition of
originality, shifting focus from mere “sufficient skill and labour” to the “author’s own
intellectual creation”. These cases introduced the interpretation of the originality
requirement in the context of these Directives. It is now believed that the CJEU decisions
have expanded the "originality" requirement in author's rights systems—that is, the work
must be the "author's own intellectual creation"—to encompass all domains of UK law that
fall outside the scope of the EU Directive and also apply to the "classical" works protected
under UK copyright. In such a way seems to force UK to amend its ‘originality’ concept in
generally to bring it with more-author’s right based approach in a European harmonising
principle. This view is omitted because it is too extreme. The CJEU decision might result in a
minor modification to the definition of ‘originality’ in UK but not in fundamental change.

Student ID: 201752950

1
Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08) EU:C:2009:465;[2012] Bus. L.R. 102
2
Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo! UK Ltd (C-604/10) EU: C: 2012: 115; [2012] Bus. L.R. 1753

1
It will be claimed that this is excessively severe. UK copyright (skill and labour) and author's
rights (personal intellectual creation carrying the author's stamp) are more complicated and
harder to pinpoint. The applicable Directives on certain categories of works' originality
standards may not represent author's rights systems' overall originality requirements. It is
unclear how much the CJEU judges intended these far-reaching copyright law reforms that
some UK commentors believe3. From a formalistic viewpoint, an action like this may be
beyond the judges' jurisdiction.
‘Originality’ under EU
Continental Member States and the UK have traditionally defined the originality criteria
differently. In contrast to the latter, continental EU copyright laws have endorsed a more
stringent interpretation, regarding the requirement for sufficient skill, labour, and effort.
The CJEU first made significant rulings on originality in the Infopaq judgement. The CDPA4
previously recognized a database as a literary production, but the criteria for originality was
increased following the decision in Infopaq5. The database was considered “original”
because of its unique organization of information6, which qualifies it as an embodiment of
the author’s intellectual creation.
Another significant element is the CJEU’s judgement that a copyright work’s length is almost
irrelevant as long as it is the author’s intellectual creation. The CJEU only restriction is that a
single word “considered in isolation” cannot be considered the author’s intellectual creation.
This criterion was previously established by the UK courts in the Meltwater7 case. The Berne
Convention already encompassed the protection of databases as creative works, and this
was further elaborated in the TRIPS agreement. However, the practical implementation of
this protection proved challenging owing to the absence of precise definitions for terms
associated with databases, such as “table” and “compilation”, 8 rendering it challenging to
evaluate using
Student ID: 201752950
3
Eleonora Rosati, ‘Originality in US and UK copyright experiences as a springboard for an EU-wide reform
debate’ (2010) 41(5):524ff.
4
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
5
Infopaq International v. Danske Dagblades Forening (Case C-5/08), ECDR 16
6
Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd. And others v. Meltwater Holding BV and others [2010] EWHC 3099 (Ch)
7
Ibid (n 6)
8
Practical Law IP&IT, Catherine Bingham, Dentons and Shona Harper, Copyright: subsistence, duration and first
ownership < https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I0f483318879a11e498db8b09b4f043e0/
View/FullText.html?transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=(sc.Search)&firstPage=true > assessed by 26
December 2023

2
the “labour and skill” criterion. According to Bentham’s judicial theory of UK law, this implies
that it did not have a practical impact until the concept of ‘originality’ was broadened in the
case of Infopaq9.
The most recent advancement in this development is the Football Dataco10 decisions. The
case pertained to a request for a preliminary determination on the interpretation of the
Database Directive, particularly, whether the concept of the ‘author’s own intellectual
creation’ in Article 3 of the Directive11 necessities more than substantial labour and skill
from the author. The CJEU elaborated on Article 3(1) definition of “databases which, by
reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the “author’s own
intellectual creation” protects the structure of a database, not its contents, therefore
“selection” and “arrangement” apply to the author’s data selection and arrangement. Since
these principles do not apply to inventing database data, the effort to do so is not taken into
consideration for finding copyright under Article 3(1).12 The court stated ‘skill’ wasn’t enough
to make a work original in European sense. The author’s significant labour and skill in
database needed cannot establish copyright protection if the data selection and
arrangement lack originality. “Author’s intellectual creation requires an ‘original expression
of the creative freedom of its author but not skill.”13
‘Originality’ under UK
In UK ‘originality’ only applies on requirement for literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic
work according to section 1(1) CDPA 1988. Originality is not specified in the Act. It is
occasionally considered as not requiring merit, quality, novelty, or uniqueness. In University
of London Press14, originality of expression is more crucial than ideas. The work must derive
from the
author in the sense that it is the result of his substantial skills, industry, or experience,
according to Lord Atkinson. However, in Interlego v Tyco15, the court stated that labour, skill,
Student ID: 201752950
9
ibid. (n 6)
10
Football Dataco v Yahoo (Case C-604/10)
11
Article 3(1) of Council Directive (EC) 2001/29
12
Trevor Cook, Bird & Bird LLP, ‘Football Dataco: implications for copyright subsistence’ (2012) <
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-518-6424?
comp=pluk&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&OWSessionId=3316c263934f42
dc92144afc15cee6ee&skipAnonymous=true > accessed by 31 December 2023
13
Football Dataco Ltd and others v Stan James (Abingdon) Ltd and others [2012] IP & T 309
14
University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601
15
Interlego AG v Tyco Industroes Inc [1989] AC 217

3
or judgement alone is not enough to produce an original work; it must alter the earlier work
or raw material. This was affirmed by Jacob LJ stated require a great labour and technical
skill may granted as protected works in Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd16.
Does the “intellectual creation” requirement elevate the standard of originality in UK?
In contrast to Bentham’s suggestion that the efficiency of a law can be determined solely by
referring to statutory harmonization efforts, it is necessary to analyse the implementation in
case law in order to ascertain whether the originality threshold in the UK has been raised
since Infopaq II17.18 One could argue that the originality standard in the UK has expanded due
to the inclusion of the “intellectual creation” criteria. This alternative requirement serves as
a backup in case there is an uncertainty regarding the definition of “labour, skill, and work”
as these terms are not explicitly defined in the law. However, it is improbable that this would
occur, as the judiciary appears to employ these meanings interchangeably, irrespective of
their precise meaning. This aligns with the UK court’s emphasis on the “intent” behind these
phrases, rather than adhering strictly to a specific definition, as seen in decisions related to
commercial law19.
The inclusion of a database into the realm of copyright protection. Based on the criterion of
“intellectual expression”, broadens the scope of what is considered a protected work.
However, it does not significantly alter the requirements for originality. Prior to Infopaq, a
database was already recognised as a protected ’work’ under The World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO)20as a literary work. However, after Infopaq, a significant
alternation in
the arrangement of the information within the database became necessary for it to be
considered copyrighted. One may argue that this actually reduced the threshold instead of
increasing it as it is imposed a more stringent criterion for a database to be considered
copyrighted. In Painer21, the protection of photographs as a subject matter was already
established. However, the ruling increased the threshold of originality required by
introducing
16
Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 565
17
Case C-302/10 (Infopaq II)
18
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, ‘SWINDLERS (INCLUSING RHE MASTER OF THE ROLLS?) NOT WANTED:
BENYHAM AND JUSTICE REFORM’ (2 March 2011) <
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/sites/laws/files/neuberger_11.pdf > accessed by 15 January 2024
19
Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50
20
World Intellectual Property Organization (1982)
21
(Case-145/10) Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbh and others

4
Student ID: 201752950
the criteria of “reflecting the author’s personality”22 and the creation of a “personal touch”
through a series of creative decisions related to lighting, angles, and colour grading. This
ensured that the photograph was unique and met the criteria for intellectual creation. There
was an attempt to incorporate Painer into the CDPA 198823. Nonetheless, the CDPA’s low
originality standard did not increase the threshold for originality in UK courts, which was
precisely the opposite of what was intended.
The UK legal system mostly relies on the UK standard of originality rather than the EU when
it comes to decide copyright and originality in other UK case law. One may argue that the
broadening of the concept of originality can paradoxically impose restrictions. In the
Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd24 case, which dealt with the reproduction of a musical piece,
it was established that a reproduction might be considered original if it involves a significant
amount of “labour and skill” in making a substantial modification. Contrary with Mummery
L.j. stated that originality does not adherence to objective criteria such as originality,
usefulness, creativity, merit, quality, or value. An artistic work may possess no value and be
devoid of any merit, yet it may nevertheless be eligible for copyright protection. 25
A comparable viewpoint was expressed in prior judgements concerning derivative works 26
and successive variations27. This includes the protection of songs cover versions, annotated
copies of literary works, and preliminary manuscripts that from an integral component of an
incomplete book. By strictly using the definition of EU, there is a risk of losing pecuniary
rights,
which might lead to secondary writers not being legally protected and a decrease in
motivation to create other versions of a certain literary, dramatic, or artistic work. Although
the intellectual creation aspect appears to grant additional rights, it also has the potential to
have the opposite effect. The court has the discretion to make a decision and consider
several factors.

22
Ibid (n 21).
23
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, art 6
24
Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 565
25
Eleonora Rosati, ‘Towards an EU-wide copyright? (Judicial) pride and (legislative) prejudice’ I.P.Q. 2013, 1, 47-
68
26
Walter v Lane [1900] A.C. 539
27
Sweeney & Anor v Macmillan Publisher Ltd & Anor [2001] EWHC Ch 460

5
Student ID: 201752950
EU cases impact in the UK
It is necessary to first analyse the legal definition of ‘work’ according to UK legislation. The
CDPA and its preceding conventions do not provide a clear and sufficient definition of the
term ‘labour’. Case law conjunction with the closed list outlined in the CDPA, has played a
crucial role in determining the definition of ‘work’. Bentham asserts that it is necessary to
have a concise codification of laws and terminology in order to optimize the practical value
of the legal system.28
The Copyright Directive elaborate extensively on the many requirements concerning
‘intellectual creation’ as outlined in the Cofemel v G-Star Raw29 decision. This case also
established in Infopaq, which increased the criteria for databases to be considered as ‘work’,
going beyond the requirements outlined in the WIPO convention where it was protected as
a literary work. Thus, when it concerns to databases, it just gave the false impression of
surpassing the closed list. Indeed, further obstacles were introduced in the pursuit of
copyright protection.
According to Newspaper Licensing Agency v Meltwater30, titles and headings are eligible for
copyright protection if their arrangement demonstrates the author’s intellectual creation.
One may argue that these two subject matters were previously protected as ‘literary works’;
but the ‘originality’ that defined by EU is crucial to provide copyright protection. The High
court reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal found that the defendant’s commercial media
monitoring service’s copying of newspaper headlines and extracts could infringe copyright.
The High Court held that the CJEU in Infopaq just reaffirmed the originality criteria do not
alter it in UK. Copyright subsistence and infringement are reasonable if the text extract taken
expresses the author’s intellectual creation, test of quality instead of substantiality like
taking a substantial

28
Dean Alfange Jr., ‘Jeremy Bentham and the Codification of Law’, 55 Cornell L. Rev. 58 (1969)
29
Cofemel v G-Star Raw (C-683/17)
30
Newspaper Licensing Agency v Meltwater [2011] EWCA Civ 890

6
part. The Court of Appeal decides that “intellectual creation” as defined by the CJEU refers
to origin, not novelty or merit, hence Infopaq could not fulfil the long-standing originality
requirement of classical English cases31 like University of London Press32 and Ladbroke33. This
Student ID: 201752950
limited approach to influence of Infopaq on UK copyright law was criticised. Meltwater has
difficulties, such as the possible harm to free speech if newspaper titles are protected. This
worry is true. However, the issue is not originality but permissible activities in the context of
infringement: notably in the Anglo-Saxon world there is persistence belief, Lockean and
unfortunate, if property or copyright-property must be impregnable. Nothing like that,
instead of attempting to redefine the already unclear originality requirement, generous and
much broader permitted acts and a better understanding of constitutional rights like
freedom of expression and freedom of the arts may put the copyright owner in second
place.
The Meltwater judgement illustrates how UK courts may interpret the “transplant” of an
“own intellectual creation” originality criteria. Contrast with Meltwater, the traditional
English cases on originality cannot be disregarded without qualification following Infopaq
and the CJEU’s later cases, but it is also exaggerated to declare them overruled. As stated
earlier, the progressive incorporation or transplantation of EU originality standards will
repeat, unless this process has already been accomplished and a future comprehensive EU
Copyright Directive would just restate the status quo. Following EU Directives, the Wittem
Group’s 2010 draft European Copyright Code34 defines copyright in a work that “constitutes
its author’s own intellectual creation” under Article 1.1(1)35. The note to Article 1.1(1) shows
that we have not reached an undisputed status quo since the suggested originality definition
includes “skill and labour” and “creative” originality. 36 The EU harmonisation also reinforced
the UK principle of ‘originality’ in relation to protecting derivatives works, encompassing
both literary and musical. Even if words are protected as literary works, a single word would
not qualify as a “work” as changing only one word would not have required any “personal

31
Deming Liu, ‘Of Originality: originality in English copyright law: past and present” [2014], 36(6), 376-389
32
University of London Press v University Tutorial Pres Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601
33
Ladbroke v William Hill [1964] 1 All ER 465
34
European Copyright Code
35
Article 1.1(1) of European Copyright Code
36
Andreas Rahmatian, ‘Originality in UK Copyright Law: The Old “Skill and Labour” Doctrine Under Pressure”
[2013] 44(1) IIC 4.

7
touch”37 or “material change”38. This decision is important achieving a fair balance of rights
among citizens, since a business might potentially exploit the copyright of a single work by
taking legal action against ordinary individuals who may mistakenly use the copyrighted
term without a comprehensive

Student ID: 201752950

understanding of the law. This aligns with Bentham’s perspective on how the court should
provide decisions that optimize utility or “general happiness”.
The concept of “intellectual creation” in EU law has some restriction to prevent the misuse
of its legal definition. Although annotated works and artistic works are eligible for
protection, a creative element must be present. Protection does not extend to small
modifications made to technical illustrations, such as engineering designs 39, or to “factual
records”40 that lack a “expression of intellectual creation”. In the absence of substantial
legislation, confusion would ensue. Bentham’s fundamental critique of substantive law,
which is crucial for ensuring judicial efficiency, is its imprecision and ambiguity.
With the Infopaq and BSA41case, some academic argue that CJEU has seemingly abolished
the UK “closed list” of works based on categories like literary, musical, dramatic, and so on.
The UK approach was to not protect anything outside the categories, such as a TV show
format. This approach is uncertain due to the CJEU’s finding that copyright should only be
based on intellectual creation. This suggest that fragrances and cheeses may be sufficiently
original to gain UK copyright protection.42
In writer’s perspective, the EU courts have provided further explanation on the matter, but
this does not suggest that it has been entirely abolished. The EU definitions have enhanced
the clarity of codifications specified “within the body of law” that regulate the CDPA, a
development that would be seen as favourable according to Bentham’s legal theory. The
court retains significant discretion in the implementation of the statue, as seen by the
restrictions outlined in the Interlego case, which also used the UK criteria “originality”
leading to a judgement that deviated from the usual practice.

37
ibid. (n 18)
38
Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] RPC 69
39
Interlego AG v Tyco Industroes Inc [1989] AC 217
40
(Case C469/17) Funke Medien NRW GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutcschland EU:C: 2019:623
41
Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace v Ministerstvo kultury, C-393/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:816
42
Eleonora Rosati, ‘Why the CJEU cheese copyright case is anything but cheesy’ J.I.P.L.P. 2017, 12(10).

8
Post-Brexit
With Brexit, the UK is no longer bound by CJEU decisions. This raises the question of
whether the “imported” understanding of originality will remain influential. Some believe
that UK courts will gradually revert to a more traditional approach, emphasizing labour and
skill over

Student ID: 201752950

intellectual creation. Others argue that the CJEU’s influence has been too significant to be
easily discarded and that the UK will likely continue to embrace a more stringent originality
standard.
What about regaining control over the aforementioned elements of copyright? At this point,
it is uncertain if the courts will return to their previous interpretation of the originality test.
The intellectual creation standard of the ECJ has been incorporated into the common law
system, through its cases and interpretation in decisions like Meltwater. Thus far, there have
been no issues, but in the event of difficulties arising in complex post-Brexit scenarios, the
UK courts may have discretion to rely on skill and labour. Similarly, the CJEU holds the view
that even small portions of text or music can be protected, and it seems that the UK closed
list of protected work categories may no longer apply, the UK has the potential to diverge
from the CJEU’s approaches in both regards and revert to skill and labour in the UK.
The Court of Appeal in UK recently decided THJ v Sheridan43, a copyright originality dispute
involving graphic user interfaces (GUIs). The claimant that the labour and skills required to
design the appearance and functionality of the interface, as well as the arrangement of the
tables and diagrams, were adequate to qualify the product as an artistic work. In the Court
of Appeal, defendants are correct that the court did not use the proper criteria, which is
creative ability in the development of the work by making free and creative decisions to
stamp it with their personal touch. The criteria he employed was “skill and labour”, which
the English courts used before Infopaq, not the “author’s own intellectual creation” test. As
Football Dataco and Funke Medien illustrate, these two tests are different, and the European
test is more difficult,

43
THJ v Sheridan [2023] EWCA Civ 1354

9
but Painer shows that a basic portrait photo could satisfy it. To be fair to the court, he said
that he was not directed to any relevant case law on this topic although the Defendants
referenced BSA on a separate problem.44
Conclusion
The potential effects of the UK withdrawal from the EU include the aforementioned
copyright developments. In the event that the UK withdraws from the EU, UK law will once
again be sovereign and EU law will cease to be enforceable. Consequently, there is a
potential for a
Student ID: 201752950
return to a strict interpretation of originality. As far as the writer concerned, the impact of
the EU standards will not be significantly different, given that the anticipated changes are
grossly exaggerated. More generally, Rahmatian believes Brexit will have minimal impact on
UK copyright guidelines. The laws may be amended gradually, but overall changes are
unlikely due to the worldwide nature of the internet. 45 Dinwoodie and Dreyfuss suggest that
UK courts may struggle to deviate from Infopaq and the test of ‘author’s intellectual
creation’ after Brexit46 since they have already used the traditional originality criteria. Thus,
leaving Infopaq may cause UK case law inconsistencies.

44
ibid (n 45), para 23.
45
Andreas Rahmatian, ‘European Copyright Inside or Outside the EU: Pluralism of Copyright Laws and the
‘Herderian Paradox’’ (2016) 47 ICC 912, 939
46
Graeme B Dinwoodie and Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, ‘Brexit and IP: The Great Unravelling’ (2018) 39 Vardozo
L Rev 967, 971.

10
 (3113 words)
Student ID: 201752950
Bibliography
Cases
Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08) EU:C:2009:465;[2012] Bus.
L.R. 102
Football Dataco Ltd v. Yahoo! UK Ltd (C-604/10) EU:C: 2012:115; [2012] Bus. L.R. 1753
Infopaq International v. Danske Dagblades Forening (Case C-5/08), ECDR 16
Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd. and others v. Meltwater holding BV and others [2010]
EWHC 3099 (Ch)
University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601
Interlego AG v. Tyco Industroes lnc [1989] AC 217
Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 565
Case C-302/10 (Infopaq II)
Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50
(Case-145/10) Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbh and others
Walter v Lane [1900] A.C. 539
Sweeney & Anor v Macmillan Publisher Ltd & Anor [2001] EWHC Ch 460
Cofemel v G-Star Raw (C-683/17)
Ladbroke v William Hill [1964] 1 All ER 465
Exxon Corp v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] RPC 69
Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace v. Ministerstvo kultury, C-393/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:816
THJ v Sheridan [2023] EWCA Civ 1354
Football Dataco Ltd and others v Stan James (Abingdon) Ltd and others [2012] IP & T 309

Legislation

11
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
Council Directive (EC) 2001/29 of 22 May 2001

Student ID: 201752950

Websites
Practical Law IP&IT, Catherine Bingham, Dentons and Shona Harper, Copyright: subsistence, duration and first
ownership < https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I0f483318879a11e498db8b09b4f043e0/
View/FullText.html?transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=(sc.Search)&firstPage=true > assessed by 26
December 2023

Trevor Cook, Bird & Bird LLP, ‘Football Dataco: implications for copyright subsistence’ (2012) <
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-518-6424?
comp=pluk&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&OWSessionId=3316c263934f42
dc92144afc15cee6ee&skipAnonymous=true > accessed by 31 December 2023

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, ‘SWINDLERS (INCLUSING RHE MASTER OF THE ROLLS?) NOT WANTED:
BENYHAM AND JUSTICE REFORM’ (2 March 2011) <
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/sites/laws/files/neuberger_11.pdf > accessed by 15 January 2024

Books
L. Bently and others, ‘Intellectual Property Law’ (6th edn, OUP 2022)

Journals and Articles

Eleonora Rosati, ‘Originality in US and UK copyright experiences as a springboard for an EU-
wide reform debate’ (2010) 41(5):524ff.
Eleonora Rosati, ‘Why the CJEU cheese copyright case is anything but cheesy’ J.I.P.L.P. 2017,
12(10).
Andreas Rahmatian, ‘Originality in UK Copyright Law: The Old “Skill and Labour” Doctrine
Under Pressure” [2013] 44(1) IIC 4.
Deming Liu, ‘Of Originality: originality in English copyright law: past and present” [2014],
36(6), 376-389
Dean Alfange Jr., ‘Jeremy Bentham and the Codification of Law’, 55 Cornell L. Rev. 58 (1969)

12
Eleonora Rosati, ‘Towards an EU-wide copyright? (Judicial) pride and (legislative) prejudice’
I.P.Q. 2013, 1, 47-68
Andreas Rahmatian, ‘European Copyright Inside or Outside the EU: Pluralism of Copyright
Laws and the ‘Herderian Paradox’’ (2016) 47 ICC 912, 939
Graeme B Dinwoodie and Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, ‘Brexit and IP: The Great Unravelling’
(2018) 39 Vardozo L Rev 967, 971.

13