Usman Tariq

“He’s a very, very intelligent counsel who is able to articulate his knowledge well too”; and “He is a very good technical lawyer”.
Chambers & Partners 2022 – Administrative & Public law

“He is a very highly regarded practitioner and is tremendously able”; and “Usman has the ability to get on board quickly and absorb cases in a meaningful way. He is skilled as a negotiator and gives advice in very difficult circumstances in an elegant and able manner”.
Chambers & Partners 2022 – Civil Liberties & Human Rights

“Smart, good on his feet, both in person and within virtual court as well. Clients love him”; and “His level of preparation is outstanding; he is so conscientious and really easy to deal with.”
Chambers & Partners 2022 – Commercial Dispute Resolution

“He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of IP”.
Chambers & Partners 2022 – Intellectual Property

“Garners critical acclaim in the market for his abilities in a host of cases including those involving IP rights in games, television and related merchandise”.
Chambers & Partners 2022 – Information Technology

“He is incredibly user-friendly, helpful, accessible and easy to instruct. He is very good at seeing arguments that aren’t immediately obvious and finds arguments in the detail”.
Chambers & Partners 2022 – Professional Negligence

“A well-regarded junior with a broad commercial practice. He is regularly instructed to act for administrators, liquidators and trustees, among other parties, in complex corporate and personal insolvency cases”.
Chambers & Partners 2022 – Restructuring / Insolvency

“Usman is very knowledgeable on all elements of intellectual property work. Excellent on his feet, and has the ear of the court”.
Legal 500 2022 – Commercial Disputes

“He is excellent on his feet and has the ear of the court”.
Legal 500 2022 – Administrative and Public law

“He has a very sharp mind and brings clarity to complex matters”.
Chambers & Partners 2021 – Commercial Dispute Resolution

“Usman continues to impress with his unrivalled knowledge of all issues of IP as well as his excellent manner with clients. He is universally respected at the Bar, including by opponents and the judiciary”; and “Now regarded as the leading all-round IP junior in Scotland. He has the ear of the court, and his in-depth level of preparation is awesome.”
Chambers & Partners 2021 – Intellectual Property

“Consistently impressive in commercial disputes. He has a formidable intellect and knowledge of the law, and his easy-going and relaxed personality plays equally well with clients and with the court”; and “He’s a standout performer: he’s good on his feet, he’s good in his writing and he’s very good to deal with on a personal level”.
Chambers & Partners 2020 – Commercial Dispute Resolution

“His advice and knowledge is consistently of the highest standard”.
Legal 500 2020 – Commercial Litigation

“The best all-round IP junior in Scotland.”
Legal 500 2020 – Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Media

“He is considered a rising star by solicitors and advocates alike.”
Legal 500’s Junior of the Year Legal 2019 – Legal 500 UK Awards 2019

“He is a shrewd and agile performer in the courtroom and is well-equipped to tackle cases raising novel issues”; and “Tariq undertakes more IP activities than any other junior; solicitors profess themselves to be dazzled by his opinion work.”
World Trademark Review 1000 – The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals

“An excellent negotiator”; and “a go-to advocate for intellectual property matters, with considerable experience in high-value cases.”
Legal Who’s Who (UK Bar)

Henderson v Foxworth Investments Limited and another (UK Supreme Court) 2014 S.C. (U.K.S.C.) 203
Acted for the successful appellant in the UK Supreme Court. This case concerned an alleged gratuitous alienation under section 242 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The UK Supreme Court gave guidance on the role of the appellate court in reviewing a trial judge’s findings of facts. This case remains a leading authority on this area of law.

William Grant & Sons Irish Brands Ltd v Lidl Stiftung & Co KG 2021 S.L.T. 889; and 2021 S.L.T. 767
Acted for the successful pursuer and respondent in the Outer House and Inner House of the Court of Session. This case was a high-profile intellectual property dispute involving a lookalike product sold by a well-known chain of supermarkets. William Grant & Sons, the owner of Hendrick’s gin, commenced trade mark infringement proceedings against Lidl in relation to the sale of Lidl’s own-brand Hampstead gin. The Outer House granted William Grant & Sons an interim interdict that prevented the sale of Hampstead gin in Lidl’s supermarkets in Scotland. The Inner House in a significant judgment extended the territorial scope of the interim interdict to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Tomatin Distillery Co. Ltd. V Tomatin Trading Co. [2021] CSOH 100
Acted for the successful defender in the Outer House of the Court of Session. This case was an intellectual property dispute involving the question of whether the pursuer could restrain the defender from using the place name “Tomatin” in the name of its hotel development where the pursuer had registered the same name as trade marks in respect of Scotch whisky and other goods and services. The Court granted the defender’s counterclaim seeking revocation of the pursuer’s trade marks on the grounds of bad faith registration and the trade marks being descriptive of the geographical origin of the goods and services for which they were registered. The Court also held that the defender’s use of “Tomatin” in the name of its hotel development would not infringe the pursuer’s trade marks.

Sapphire 16 S.A.R.L. v Marks and Spencer Plc [2021] CSOH 103
Acted for the successful pursuer in the Outer House of the Court of Session. A retail landlord commenced proceedings for breach of a court order which ordained the tenant to keep open and sufficiently stocked, staffed and furnished a substantial retail unit within a large shopping centre. The Court held that the defender’s trading at the retail unit was a breach of its order and that the defender required to remedy the breach but it would not hold the defender in contempt of Court on this occasion.

Sky UK Ltd. v Cherrie 2021 S.L.T. 743
Acted for the successful pursuer in the Outer House of the Court of Session. The pursuer obtained an interim interdict against the defender from infringing copyright by sharing a significant amount of content on YouTube and Reddit. The case involves an analysis of the investigations made by the pursuer to identify the defender behind his online aliases.

Reactec Limited v Curotec Team Limited 2020 S.L.T. 783
Acted for the successful pursuer in the Outer House of the Court of Session. This case related to a patent entitled “Monitoring Apparatus for Monitoring Hand Held Tool”. The pursuer was successful in establishing that its patent had been infringed by the defender and also resisting the defender’s counterclaim for revocation of the patent. This was the first proof in the Court of Session for patent infringement and revocation in many years.

BN Rendering Ltd v Everwarm Ltd (Outer House, Court of Session) [2018] CSOH 45
Acted for the successful defender in the Outer House of the Court of Session. This was a Debate on the jurisdiction of the Scottish court to enforce an Adjudicator’s decision in a dispute between Scottish domiciled parties.  The defender argued that there was no jurisdiction because of a clause in the construction contract prorogating exclusive jurisdiction to the English court. The Court held that the jurisdiction clause was enforceable as the defender could demonstrate the pursuer’s specific consent to the clause; and that the clause should be construed to include actions for the enforcement of an adjudication award.

Liquidator of Heather Capital Limited v Levy & McRae and Others  (Inner House, Court of Session) [2017] CSIH 19
Acted for the successful reclaimer in the Inner House of the Court of Session. This is a high-profile liquidation of a hedge fund with investments exceeding $400 million before its collapse. The Liquidator is pursuing cases against law firms who are alleged to have acted for Heather Capital in transactions where funds were diverted as part of a wider fraudulent scheme on investors. The Court considered the issue of prescription including for breach of trust and sections 6(4) and 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.

Worbey v Campbell (Inner House, Court of Session) [2017] CSIH 49 
Acted for the successful defenders and respondents in the Outer House and Inner House of the Court of Session. This case was a dispute over ownership of dating apps. The Courts considered the law of partnership and determined that the pursuers had failed to establish that a partnership had been formed for the development and exploitation of the apps.

CCHG Ltd t/a Vaporized v Vapouriz Ltd (Outer House, Court of Session) [2017] S.L.T. 908
Acted for the successful respondent the Outer House of the Court of Session in an appeal against the decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office invalidating the appellant’s trade mark. This case is understood to be the first substantive appeal under the Trade Marks Act 1994 from the UK Intellectual Property Office to the Court of Session. The Court considered the approach that a Scottish Court should take to an appeal of this nature and the general principles of trade mark law.

Sky plc and Sky UK Ltd v Robert Stewart (Outer House, Court of Session) [2017] CSOH 141
Acted for the successful petitioners in a Proof on a breach of interdict and contempt of Court in the Outer House of the Court of Session. The breach of interdict was caused by a broadcast of a football match featuring the petitioners’ copyright works to the public without the relevant licence

Chalmers v Chalmers (Inner House, Court of Session) 2016 S.C. 158
Acted for the successful reclaimer before the Inner House of the Court of Session. The Court held that a disposition of property to which a husband had taken title in his wife’s name without her knowledge, on which her signature had been forged when transferring it to their son, was a nullity and there was no basis for the Lord Ordinary in exercising his discretion to refuse decree of reduction on equitable grounds.

Liquidator of Ricky Martin (Racing) Ltd v Martin and Others (Sheriff Court) 2016 G.W.D. 27-495
Acted for the successful liquidator in a 6 days proof on whether directors of a betting company should be held liable under the wrongful trading provision in section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986. This is one of the first actions under section 214 of the 1986 Act in Scotland.