False trade description meaning

The Court of Appeal concluded that Babek International Ltd’s trade mark—a gold oval featuring embossed ‘BABEK’ lettering—has a written description that accords with its visual depiction. Accordingly, Justice Richard Arnold stated that it is a single sign, namely the sign shown in the image, and is capable of registration. The judgment further notes that, contrary to Iceland’s contention, the verbal description does not conflict with the pictorial element, nor does it generate any uncertainty or ambiguity about the subject matter of the registration. The dispute originates from Babek’s March 2024 allegation that Iceland, without authorisation, used a gold ‘BABEK’ logo protected as a trade mark on its own meat products, even after Babek ceased supplying meat goods to the supermarket in 2020...

Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1341 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision adds clarity to how UK courts will evaluate trade marks comprising a visual element alongside a verbal description. The Court of Appeal held that interpretation must consider three aspects, and that none outweighs the others: the classification as a figurative mark; the image shown in the representation; and the accompanying written description. The court emphasised parity between these components. A verbal description of a figurative sign need not catalogue every slight visual nuance. Nevertheless, where a description is provided, applicants should ensure it aligns with the depicted image. Any inconsistency may expose the registration to invalidity challenges, on the basis that the trade mark lacks the requisite clarity and precision. In short, descriptions can be concise, but they must faithfully reflect the representation so that the overall filing is coherent and comprehensible to examiners, competitors and the public alike,...

In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Patents Trade marks/passing off Designs General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&A Useful information IP Highlights 2024/2025 Copyright & associated rights Testing the outer limits of artistic copyright (WaterRower v Liking) WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (t/a Topiom) [2024] EWHC 2806 (IPEC) centred on whether a rowing machine, the WaterRower, qualified for protection as a work of artistic craftsmanship under section 4(1)(c) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The matter compelled the court to address a clash between the UK and EU criteria for this category. While earlier rulings had managed to sidestep that divergence, it could not be avoided here. Unable to bridge the divide, the judge determined the WaterRower was not a work of artistic craftsmanship under UK law, although it would have secured protection applying EU law....

Partnerships are often used as vehicles for holding UK real estate The forms of partnership commonly adopted in practice are limited partnerships (LPs) and limited liability partnerships (LLPs). This Practice Note considers how, in a property context, a UK LP is treated for direct taxes—corporation tax, income tax and capital gains tax (CGT)—together with the annual tax on enveloped dwellings (ATED). For these purposes, unless stated otherwise, CGT covers both capital gains tax and corporation tax on chargeable gains The direct tax position of an LLP in a property context is addressed in Practice Note: Tax treatment of a UK limited liability partnership. Where contractual arrangements may amount to a partnership, see Practice Note: Property holding structures—direct tax treatment of contractual joint ownership The indirect tax (ie VAT and SDLT) treatment of partnerships differs from the direct tax treatment and therefore lies outside the scope of this Practice Note. For further details, please see the following Practice Notes: Partnerships and VAT SDLT and...

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice note provides links to relevant News Analyses on Brexit featured on Private Client and found in the Brexit collection. Date, News Analysis and a brief description are set out below. 26 January 2021 — Private Client—Brexit considerations Private Client analysis: On 24 December 2020, one week before the Brexit transition ended at 11pm on 31 December 2020 (IP completion day), Prime Minister Boris Johnson confirmed the UK and EU had reached a deal. Angharad Lynn, senior associate at VWV, assesses the effect of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) on private client law in the UK. 22 January 2021 — Pensions after Brexit and the UK-EU trade deal Pensions analysis: Rosalind Conner and Danyal Enver, managing partner and associate respectively at Arc Pensions Law, examine the consequences for pensions after Brexit in the wake of the UK-EU trade deal. 11 December 2020 — Contentious trusts and Brexit—looking beyond the implementation period Private Client analysis:...

This Practice Note This Practice Note explains how to file international design applications under the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs of 2 July 1999 (the Geneva Act). Known as the ‘Hague system’, it provides guidance on the rules and steps for lodging an international design application, and outlines how the UK handles international designs at a national level. It also examines the implications of Brexit for international designs designating the EU, and assesses the pros and cons of the Hague system compared with submitting separate national applications for registered design protection. Before 1 January 2025, the Hague Act concerning the international registration of industrial designs (1960) (the Hague Act 1960) was likewise in effect under the Hague Agreement; however, in November 2024 the Assembly of the Hague Union stated that, from 1 January 2025, the Hague system would be centred solely on the Geneva Act, with the Hague Act 1960 frozen. See: LNB News 26/11/2024 3 and News Analysis: WIPO to...

Introduction This concerns the acquisition by [ insert buyer name ] (the Buyer) of the [ entire share capital of [ insert name of target company ] Limited, incorporated in England and Wales under number [ insert company number ] (the Company) OR [ insert description of the business to be acquired ] (the Business) as a going concern, together with specified assets used in the Business ] from [ insert seller name ] (the Seller) (the Proposed Acquisition). This questionnaire is intended to enable the Buyer, the Buyer's solicitors, patent and trade mark attorneys, and other professional advisers to gather essential information about the IP owned and/or used by the [ Company and its subsidiaries OR Business OR which the Buyer requires to assist in the valuation of the Company OR Business and with the negotiation of the Proposed Acquisition ] . Please respond to every single question in full. Please set out your answers in italics immediately beneath each question and supply copies of all relevant documentation,...

This Licence is entered into on [ insert date ] (the Commencement Date): Parties [ insert licensor name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (the Licensor); and [ insert licensee name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (the Licensee), (each of the Licensor and the Licensee being a party and, together, the Licensor and the Licensee are the parties). Background (A) [ Explain the relationship between the Licensor and the Licensee. ] (B) [ The Licensor has entered into an agreement with the Licensee [ dated [ insert date ] ] (the Main Agreement) for [ insert other description of relevant transaction (referencing any relevant related agreements) ] (‘ Transaction ’). ] (C) The Licensor has agreed to...

Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3: It is [ accepted OR not accepted OR denied ] that the Claimant was employed by the Respondent [ at its [ insert details, eg London office ] ] as [ insert job title, eg an electrician ] from [ insert date ] until [ his OR her OR their ] dismissal on [ insert date ]. It is [ accepted OR denied ] that the Respondent is [ insert brief description of the nature of the Respondent, eg a nationwide property maintenance service ]. For the reasons set out below, the Respondent denies that the Claimant was unfairly [ and/or wrongfully ] dismissed, as alleged or at all. [ It is further denied that the Respondent [ insert details of any other claims, eg automatically unfairly dismissed the Claimant under section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992), automatically unfairly selected the Claimant for redundancy under section 153 of TULR(C)A 1992,...