Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
New advice issued by the Intellectual Property Office ( IPO) to help shoppers spot fake goods on second-hand online resale platforms...
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Copyright & associated rights Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Court of Appeal confirms ‘ SHORTSTV’ trade mark is invalid ( Shorts International Ltd v Google LLC) The Court of Appeal, in Shorts International Ltd v Google LLC [2026] EWCA Civ 668, upheld the earlier ruling and dismissed Shorts International Ltd’s ( SIL’s) appeal, confirming that Google’s use of ‘ Shorts’ did not infringe SIL’s registered trade marks and that one of its registrations was invalid. SIL, a producer and distributor of short films aired on its ‘ Shorts TV’ channel, contended that Google’s deployment of ‘ Shorts’ for its You Tube Shorts service infringed its five registered trade marks under section 10(2) and 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 ( TMA...
Section 6 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 supersedes VPA 2024, s 17, scrapping the prior constraint that protected disclosures had to be made to particular recipients for specified purposes. Any term in any agreement, including commercial non-disclosure agreements ( NDAs), is void to the extent it seeks to stop a victim, or someone who reasonably believes they are a victim, from revealing relevant criminal conduct-or the counterparty’s reaction to it-to anyone, for any purpose. The new provision binds the Crown, subject only to a tightly drawn national security exception. This analysis examines how these reforms align with existing common law limits on confidentiality and their consequences for standard commercial NDA templates. It is written by Richard Hanstock, a barrister at Cornerstone Barristers and the founder of Deeptech Legal, an SRA-authorised firm specialising in cybersecurity, artificial...
In this issue Patents Copyright & associated rights Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Patents Article 3(d) entitlement of an uncombined medicinal product (drospirenone) to an SPC ( Laboratorios Leon Farma SA v Comptroller) The court was asked, at its core, whether the earlier Court of Justice ruling in Medeva BV v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Case C-322/10, operates to block the award of a supplementary protection certificate ( SPC) to a product where a prior approval existed only as part of a combination therapy. The court answered in the affirmative and held that the Intellectual Property Office ( IPO) was right to decline an SPC for drospirenone by applying Medeva. Because there was an earlier marketing authorisation ( MA) for...
‘ The exception for 'pastiches' provided for in this provision is not a catch-all provision, but covers creations that are reminiscent of one or more existing works, while at the same time exhibiting perceptible differences from them,’ the court ruled. German electronic music group Kraftwerk brought proceedings against Pelham Gmb H, the producer of ‘ Nur Mir’, a 1997 track by German rapper Sabrina Setlur. Kraftwerk objected to the unauthorised use of a two-second fragment taken from the group’s recording ‘ Metall auf Metall’......
Laboratorios Leon Farma SA v The Comptroller- General of Patents [2026] EWHC 663 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of the case? The outcome confirms that patentees still struggle to argue that a patented medicinal product merits an SPC where its active ingredient has already been the subject of an MA, even when that earlier authorisation related to a combination product. The judgment reaffirms the construction of Article 3(d) of Regulation ( EC) 469/2009 (the SPC Regulation). Notably, the court held that the converse of Medeva produces the same position: an earlier MA for a product containing ingredients A+B prevents a subsequent MA for ingredient A alone (and likewise B alone) from fulfilling the criteria for an SPC. In short, a prior combination MA blocks reliance on a later mono‑ingredient MA for SPC purposes, so the statutory requirements under Article 3(d) are not met in these...
As patent disputes multiply, and court rulings on FRAND licence rates for SEPs diverge, attention is shifting to aggregate royalty depositories to provide prospective patent licensees with greater certainty about future outlay. Such depositories offer manufacturers a transparent estimate of the fees for licensing the range of SEPs underpinning a particular standard, for example 5G connectivity in vehicles. In turn, this can head off costly litigation where an SEP owner and licensee differ over a FRAND valuation for the patents. A depository is unlike a patent pool: it is not exclusively driven by patent holders and more reliably assures that its coverage spans the complete suite of SEPs required for the relevant standard. Though long mooted and not yet implemented, aggregate royalty depositories would see an independent expert panel determine the SEPs necessary for a given standard and settle on an...
On 7 April 2026, Dyson secured an interim injunction against Chinese rival Dreame after the UPC tribunal held that the ‘ Dazzle’ hair styler infringed Dyson’s patent, compelling a suspension of sales throughout all UPC Member States and Spain. The Hamburg Local Division explained that including Spain (despite it not being a UPC Member State) was warranted because Dreame’s EU-based importer was actively putting the goods on the Spanish market, thereby creating a sufficiently close jurisdictional connection to hear the claims together under EU jurisdictional rules. The panel, chaired by Sabine Klepsch, declined to stretch the order to the UK. Citing the UK– EU Windsor Framework, under which certain EU product safety requirements still apply in Northern Ireland and oblige non‑ EU manufacturers to appoint an EU-based representative to place goods there, Dyson argued this regulatory nexus tied UK sales to the EU and could...
In this issue: IP & AI Trade marks/passing off Patents General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information IP & AI AI and copyright law in the UK: a consideration of recent developments This News Analysis reviews the latest developments in UK copyright as they intersect with AI. It distils the key themes from the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee’s report on AI, copyright and the creative industries, alongside the government’s report and impact assessment on copyright and AI, and explores the practical consequences for IP right holders, AI developers and users. It also explains where the UK approach diverges from that of the EU, and maps out forthcoming steps and how best to get ready for them. Authored by Anna...
Where are we now with AI and copyright law in the UK? The discussion around copyright and AI has moved forward with the release of two significant UK policy papers. To start, on 6 March 2026, the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee issued its study on AI, copyright and the creative sectors (the ‘ Ho L Report’). Then, on 18 March 2026, the government unveiled the Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (the ‘ Consultation Report’), alongside an economic impact assessment (the ‘ Impact Assessment’). These latter papers appeared under sections 135 and 136 of the Data ( Use and Access) Act 2025 ( DUAA 2025). Curiously, DUAA 2025 became the stage for the so‑called ‘ Kidron amendment’—measures tabled by Baroness Kidron requiring the government to declare its stance on the outcome of the consultation on copyright and AI held between...
What challenges do deepfakes present for celebrities and people in the public eye? For those in the spotlight, the surge of deepfakes—and figuring out how to prevent the exploitation of their image—has become increasingly acute as generative AI and broader technologies evolve at pace. The pressure is sharper in the UK, where the absence of a codified privacy regime or recognised image rights means individuals must piece together protection from a mosaic of statutory and common law claims to restrain unauthorised uses of their likeness. Among the registered tools being deployed to counter deepfakes are trade marks: a host of well-known figures have secured figurative marks of their faces to exert some control over how their profile and image are used. Historically, people have turned to actions such as passing off and defamation. Yet the real effectiveness of trade marks in this context is still...
This News Analysis reviews the Commission’s draft regulation creating a corporate legal framework for EU Inc (the ‘ Proposal’), considered in light of President von der Leyen’s statement of 18 March 2026 (see LNB News 18/03/2026 53). It explores the legal and practical consequences of introducing an optional, harmonised corporate regime intended to cut fragmentation, promote cross-border expansion and strengthen the EU’s competitiveness. The core company-law elements of the Proposal are set out, notably concerning the allocation of matters between the proposed regulation and any residual national law, the digital incorporation and corporate governance of EU Inc companies, and the departure from minimum share capital rules towards an alternative model of creditor protection. What legal problem is the proposed 28th regime trying to solve, and why has the Commission chosen an optional EU Inc model ? The EU Inc is conceived as a...
On 27 March 2026, a UKIPO examiner concluded in a report that the company’s artificial neural network ( ANN) is neither new nor inventive, and thus cannot receive a patent. This finding follows the company convincing the UK’s highest court to abandon the earlier test and insert an additional ‘intermediate step’ for assessing whether comparable inventions deserve patent protection. ‘ The present examination report fundamentally misunderstands the question of the intermediate step and how it is to be applied,’ said Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Browne LLP and counsel to Emotional Perception. Emotional Perception has four months to answer the examination report. Should the examiner and patent applicant fail to settle the matter, the applicant may seek a hearing before a UKIPO hearing officer......
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off IP rights and competition law General IP Lex Talk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off WIPO launches survey on certificate requirements for Madrid System trade mark registration WIPO has opened a consultation to assess whether the offices of designated Madrid System members ought to issue a domestic or regional certificate when protection is granted, or when an international trade mark registration is renewed. The exercise also explores the possible practical benefits of introducing such an obligation. Commissioned by the Madrid System working group on legal development after its September 2025 session, the outcomes will guide discussion at the working group meeting scheduled for October 2026. The consultation closes on 24 April 2026. See: LNB News...
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents Copyright & associated rights IP & AI Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Court of Appeal decides indefinite trade mark licence was capable of termination on reasonable notice ( Zaha Hadid Ltd v Zaha Hadid Foundation) A trade mark licence described as set to ‘continue indefinitely’ was not to be treated as perpetual or as incapable of termination absent some additional factor pointing to that reading. On the proper construction of the agreement, the court regarded a term permitting termination on reasonable notice as inherent in the bargain. Consequently, the licence could be ended on reasonable notice at any time by either side, even though the document specified express termination provisions only for the licensor. Written by Andrew Mace,...
EU copyright rules may not require a full overhaul to address challenges posed by AI A European Commission official indicated that a sweeping rewrite might be unnecessary, hinting that stronger enforcement and better implementation could suffice. “ It is premature to say whether a fresh legal instrument is required,” said Emmanuelle du Chalard, who leads the EU executive’s copyright unit, at an event in Brussels. She added: “ One can envisage regulatory steps that would not fundamentally replace the current framework.” “ We do not need to invent new rights or fresh exceptions; instead we can devise updated rules to enhance how existing rights are exercised and enforced.” The Commission is assessing how well the 2019 Copyright Directive functions, especially given emerging tensions between rights holders and AI firms. An external study is in progress, with publication also anticipated before the end of the year. The...
Zaha Hadid Ltd v Zaha Hadid Foundation [2026] EWCA Civ 192 What are the practical implications of the case? The ruling clarifies the line between perpetual agreements and those of indefinite duration, and the situations in which a power to terminate on reasonable notice may exist, both in principle and in day-to-day commercial practice overall too. Having surveyed the common law authorities in this field, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that perpetual and indefinite contracts can carry different consequences. At the heart of the outcome is a focus on construing the agreement and ascertaining the parties’ common intention. It underlines, once again, the need for intentions to be settled from the outset and, preferably, for contracts to contain express provisions dealing with termination. The judgment also offers notable, albeit obiter, observations on the doctrine of restraint of trade in commercial...
On 19 March 2026, João Negrão, who leads the EUIPO, suggested that the rise of AI and a rapidly evolving digital environment may necessitate a more adaptable trade mark and copyright framework, enabling companies to secure protections that are more appropriately tailored. Potential measures might involve a lower-cost five-year trade mark term instead of the current ten-year period, and even considering extending copyright safeguards to cover business names as well......
In this issue: IP & AI Plant variety rights IP and tax Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information IP & AI DSIT publishes report and impact assessment on copyright and artificial intelligence The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology ( DSIT), the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Intellectual Property Office have jointly released a report with an impact assessment. These explore the use of copyright works in training and developing AI systems, and have been issued under sections 135 and 136 of the Data ( Use and Access) Act 2025. See: LNB News 18/03/2026 44. Society for Authors launches an initiative to recognise human-written books from AI-generated writing The Society of Authors ( So A), working with the US Authors Guild, has unveiled the Human Authored logo scheme to help authors identify human-created books amid the growing wave of...
Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP and others v HMRC [2026] EWCA Civ 248 The second, third and fourth appellants (the Corporate Members) were part of the Muller multinational corporate group trading in dairy products. In 2013, those appellants moved their respective trades and assets, including intellectual property and goodwill, to the fourth appellant, Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP ( LLP), receiving membership units in the LLP in exchange. The LLP recorded amortisation of the assets and goodwill (the Material Assets) in its accounts on a straight-line basis over five years. When calculating their taxable profits from the LLP for the 2013–18 accounting periods, the Corporate Members claimed deductions for that amortisation under Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 ( CTA 2009). HMRC rejected the claims on the footing that the Material Assets did not satisfy the Part 8...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
