Fur salutes silk: three new IP barristers become QCs

The IPKat, Merpel and all the team are delighted to congratulate not one, not two, but three new intellectual property Queens' Counsel whose appointments have just been announced in the latest Silk Round.
* Charlotte May QC (8 New Square). Recent cases include the ConvaTec litigation and Case C-607/11 ITV v TVCatchup.

Andrew Lykiardopoulos (8 New Square). Charlotte's stable-mate, who has had a hand in the Meltwater case and Swarovski-Optik v Leica, here.

* Tom Mitcheson (3 New Square).  Tom has acted in AstraZeneca v KRKA (here) and the Nestle/Cadbury battle over the registrability of the four-fingered Kit Kat product as a trade mark.
Well done, all of you!
Fur salutes silk: three new IP barristers become QCs Fur salutes silk: three new IP barristers become QCs Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, February 19, 2014 Rating: 5


  1. Given that the rules pertaining to silks were changed in 1996 as a result of the introduction of Solicitor-Advocates, how long before we see the first patent attorney or trade mark attorney made a silk?

  2. Fur and silk makes me think, in light of the anonymous comment above, that some people would rather see some leading patent attorneys skinned rather than silked!

  3. Re 19 Feb at 18:02. The fact that one of the three barristers who made silk this year was originally a solicitor (rising to become a partner at a leading IP firm) and then chose to become a barrister in 2004 (as opposed to staying as a solicitor advocate), and is now a QC 10 years later, probably answers your question.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.