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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Although considerable attention has focused heavily on the Competition and Markets Authority’s ( CMA) bolstered direct enforcement toolkit, the DMCCA 2024 likewise broadens and fortifies further the core foundations of consumer protection law in the UK in several important ways. In this piece, we explore the fresh rules on unfair commercial practices, setting out in detail the operative tests, key risk points and practical approaches designed to achieve compliance in practice. What has changed The DMCCA 2024 restates and revises the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1277 ( CPUTR 2008). It preserves the split between practices that are per se unfair—and therefore unlawful—and those that are only unfair where they influence a consumer’s commercial choices. However, the range of commercial practices falling within each limb has been materially enlarged under the DMCCA 2024. Prohibited practices The following behaviours are always treated as unfair,...
GPAI model developers should still get a final draft of the EU Code of Practice from the Commission in July 2025, despite a potential ‘stop the clock’ on the EU AI Act, MLex has learned Bilateral talks are continuing, and the draft is foreseen for the first week of July. MLex earlier reported that the Commission was weighing a hold on the EU AI Act after a critical letter from the Trump administration in the US and a visit to Washington by the Commission’s Executive Vice- President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, Henna Virkkunen. The matter was recently put on the agenda of a meeting of EU digital ministers, where Virkkunen formally indicated that parts of the EU AI Act could be paused if technical standards and administrative guidance are not ready when the rules take effect. The EU AI Act phases in over...
In this issue: Designs Patents Trade marks/passing off Copyright & associated rights IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Designs Res judicata and the protection of registered designs in the EU and UK post- Brexit ( Praesidiad v Zaun) The Court of Appeal has confirmed a High Court order striking out Zaun Ltd’s ( Zaun) counterclaim attacking the validity of a Registered EU Design ( REUD) and the parallel UK re‑registered design ( UKRRD). Praesidiad Holding BVBA ( Praesidiad), formerly Betafence and owner of the rights, had already prevailed on validity before the EU Intellectual Property Office ( EUIPO) and the EU courts. The Court of Appeal found that Zaun’s renewed UK challenge was precluded by res judicata (a doctrine preventing the...
The pair of entertainment powerhouses told the court they had directed Midjourney Inc to cease exploiting their intellectual property, yet the firm allegedly disregarded letters and outreach. Rather than comply, Midjourney is said to have escalated its unlawful behaviour and even hinted at a forthcoming AI video product, according to Disney and Universal. The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs asked Midjourney to halt infringement of their copyright-protected works and, at minimum, to implement technical safeguards—like those used by other AI platforms—to stop generating infringing content. But Midjourney, which has drawn millions of subscribers and reportedly took in US$300m last year, is portrayed as prioritising profit and ignoring the plaintiffs’ requests. Based in San Francisco, Midjourney charges users for access to its website and image tool, which the filing says was developed using copyright-protected material, including those owned by Disney, Universal and their...
It marks the fifth bid by the House of Lords to harness the Data ( Use and Access) Bill to shield the creative sectors, taken despite ministers urging the upper revising chamber to step aside. Though the government is almost certain to strip out the amendment when the Bill returns to the House of Commons, where it commands a substantial majority, the mounting stand-off between both houses endangers the Bill’s prospects, with consequences for UK data protection law and the nation’s EU data adequacy standing. The Data ( Use and Access) Bill is a post- Brexit initiative to adjust elements of the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation ( EU) 2016/679, carried over from EU membership. The Bill is already on its third version, having been tabled and then heavily reworked by the previous Conservative...
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS & Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Amgen Inc & Others ( UPC_ CFI_505/2024). Background Article 54(5) of the EPC 2000 permits purpose‑limited product claims—often termed ‘second medical use claims’—to protect a known product for a particular therapeutic use, provided that use is both novel and inventive. These claims are highly attractive, as they can secure protection for employing an existing medicine in a fresh therapeutic method. Yet the scope of third‑party activities barred by such claims has long been uncertain, prompting a series of recent rulings across Europe. Consequently, differing and evolving infringement standards have emerged between jurisdictions. A common tactic of generic pharmaceutical companies to try to avoid infringement is ‘skinny labelling’, whereby protected indications are carved out of the summary of product characteristics ( Sm PC) to steer clear of liability linked to those indications. The UK Supreme Court endorsed this...
By 242 votes to 116, the House of Lords once more pressed Parliament to add the amendment to the DUA Bill, following interventions from numerous peers who argued that the Labour government’s decision to withhold the clause weakened copyright safeguards to placate Silicon Valley. It marked the fourth occasion on which peers endorsed Beeban Kidron’s transparency proposals. Kidron said it was remarkable that the government’s fixed, unyielding stance deems enforcing laws to stop the theft of UK citizens’ property to be unfair to the very industry indeed openly committing the theft......
The AI Act follows a staggered timeline for when its different chapters take legal effect, although the enforcement rules and sanction regime will only apply with the bulk of the provisions starting 2 August 2026 The AI Act is being phased in, with different chapters activating at separate times, while the enforcement mechanisms and penalties start alongside most provisions on 2 August 2026. The early roll-out has been demanding, with the Commission juggling the creation of a new AI Office, the publication of administrative guidance, and the orchestration of a code of practice for general-purpose AI models. That code has become especially divisive, touching on delicate matters such as copyright safeguards in developing generative AI and approaches to societal risks, which ultimately led to the legal deadline being missed. It has also turned into a source of friction with the US...
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Designs Patents 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 Copyright & associated rights Law360, London: On 2 June 2025, peers again backed an amendment to the Data ( Use and Access) Bill ( DUA Bill) that would oblige AI companies to be open about the copyright-protected works used to train their models, in the third round of parliamentary ping-pong on the topic. See: Peers push government again over AI copyright concerns. Designs Independent fashion designer loses design right battle against Boohoo.com ( Edwards v Boohoo.com) In a classic David and Goliath clash in fast fashion, independent designer Sonia Edwards lost her claim in Edwards v Boohoo.com UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 805 ( IPEC) against online fast...
Independent fashion designer loses design right battle against Boohoo.com ( Edwards v Boohoo.com & others) Edwards v Boohoo.com UK Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 805 ( IPEC) What are the practical implications of the case? The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ( IPEC) concluded that four of the five designs advanced by the claimant were valid, but not infringed, as there was no evidence that Boohoo had copied them. The ruling reasserts key legal principles on the subsistence of unregistered design rights and delineates the scope of design protection. Even so, the decision stands as a cautionary reminder of the exposure faced by designers who rely on unregistered rights to safeguard garment designs, particularly in the fast fashion arena, where the churn of new styles is exceptionally high. Thus, while most designs subsisted, the claim failed for lack of proof of copying. For designers in fast...
What is the background to this consultation and how does it fit in with the IPO’s transformation programme? The IPO’s transformation programme is an ambitious upgrade designed to streamline how UK IP rights are filed, administered and contested. Its ambition is to provide a single, integrated digital platform spanning patents, trade marks, designs and IPO tribunal services. In 2022 the IPO ran a public consultation on the changes needed to underpin its forthcoming digital patents service, scheduled for release later on in 2025. The government’s reply, issued in August 2023, set out several legal and procedural adjustments necessary to support construction of that service. A further consultation followed in 2023 to shape the subsequent phase of the programme, this time covering trade marks, designs and tribunal services. The government’s response, published on 10 April 2025, confirmed its intended approach to a range of...
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Court grants interim injunction to stop further trade mark infringement proceedings ( Bargain Busting v Shenzhen Ske) The first defendant applied for an interim order preventing the claimant from issuing threats of trade mark infringement proceedings. The Chancery Division granted that interim relief, concluding the defendant’s likelihood of success at trial was sufficiently strong and favourable to warrant the injunction, having regard to the limited effect on the claimant’s Article 10 rights and the difficulty the defendant would have in quantifying damages for any unjustified or groundless threats. See [2025] EWHC 1239 ( Ch). Vape Co can’t threaten to sue retailers for TM infringement Law360, London: On 21 May 2025, a London court barred a vape company from threatening to bring proceedings against retailers for trade mark...
Facts The defendant in the proceedings, Ms Lawrence, entered into a loan agreement with a lender, for whom HNW, the claimant in the matter, acted as the security agent for the lender. The purpose of the loan agreement was to help finance Ms Lawrence’s development of a property. That property was also secured separately by a legal mortgage, operating as continuing security to the lender under the loan terms. Although HNW was not itself a party to the loan agreement, the loan agreement nonetheless contained an express provision said to grant HNW certain third party rights to enforce its terms; namely, that, even though HNW Lending Ltd was not a party to this Loan Agreement, HNW Lending Ltd could take the benefit of and specifically enforce each and every express term of the Loan Agreement, together with any term implied under it pursuant to the...
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Designs Copyright & associated rights General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Clarity and precision requirements for visual and verbal descriptions of trade marks ( Babek v Iceland) The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court dismissed Iceland Foods Ltd’s bid for summary judgment on its invalidity counterclaim against Babek International Ltd’s UK trade mark 907527963, holding the mark remains validly registered under sections 1(1) and 3(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Because the sign’s meaning and scope were sufficiently clear and precise, there was no basis to attack the registration under section 47 TMA 1994. The court declined an overly pedantic reading of the registration and relevant case law, preferring a pragmatic approach. Babek’s...
The IPO plans to introduce a two-hour time limit on hearings, promote mediation proceedings and modernise digital IP services to help to streamline services. However, practitioners argue the IPO must take additional steps to address acute delays, warning that slow action could imperil the UK’s standing as a beacon for soft IP disputes. Roland Mallinson, partner at Taylor Wessing LLP, cautioned that if the queue remains this lengthy, the UK risks forfeiting its reputation as a forum where inexpensive, rapid, fully reasoned and impartial rulings on IP disputes are available and can support resolution of wider geographic conflicts. The tribunal has been weighed down by a heavy caseload, especially after Brexit, when businesses filed a surge of applications to secure UK cover for their trade marks. That surge clogged the examination division, and matters deteriorated further when a wave of...
EUIPO Executive Director João Negrão informed the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs that it is sensible to look at extending the EUIPO’s current mediation centre to cover copyright disputes, alongside its alternative dispute resolution services for parties embroiled in trade mark and design conflicts. ‘ I believe that would serve everyone’s interests,’ Negrão stated. He observed that the office would have to broaden the regulatory basis for the centre, yet said he is ‘more than willing’ to examine the idea. Negrão was appearing before......
The Court of Appeal has ruled that Zaun Ltd is barred from resurrecting its counterclaim to annul Betafence’s UK re-registered design, having already failed to overturn the EU ‘parent’ design right. Delivering the judgment for a three-judge panel, Justice Richard Arnold explained that UK re-registered designs—though legally distinct from community designs—are of a ‘parasitic nature’ and are, in substance, the same as the community design from which they derive. Consequently, Zaun cannot target Betafence’s design for a second time. The court relied on the principle of res judicata, which prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has already been determined......
The decision in Generics ( UK) Ltd v Astra Zeneca AB [2025] EWHC 1012 ( Pat) highlights the growing divergence between UK patent law and the European Patent Office’s approach, particularly in the aftermath of the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s G 2/21... Reassertion of the plausibility standard At the centre of the dispute was Astra Zeneca’s patent for dapagliflozin, an inhibitor of the sodium-dependent glucose co-transporter protein SGLT2, employed to reduce blood glucose for treating type II diabetes... Although EP1506211 expired in May 2023, Generics UK, Teva and Glenmark pursued declarations of invalidity and the revocation of the related Supplementary Protection Certificates, SPC/ GB13/021 and SPC/ GB14/050. They argued that... the patent did not make it plausible that dapagliflozin is a (selective) SGLT2 inhibitor or is useful in the treatment of diabetes... the patent offered no technical contribution over the prior art ( WO...
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Designs Anti-counterfeiting Patents Confidential Information General IP Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights Copyright and AI reform omitted from Data ( Use and Access) Bill The Data ( Use and Access) Bill concluded its passage through the House of Commons on 7 May 2025. The government declined amendments aimed at tackling artificial intelligence ( AI) and copyright, which sought stronger safeguards for creatives whose works might be used to train AI models without consent. It explained that work in this space continues pending the outcome of its consultation on copyright and AI, which closed on 25 February 2025, and that attempting reform now would be premature and risk fragmented legislation. See: LNB News 08/05/2025...
Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd and another [2025] EWHC 547 ( IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? Section 1(1) of the TMA 1994 underscores that any trade mark protection claimed must be articulated with clarity and precision, and that alignment matters, notably between how the mark looks and how it is described in words. The rationale is largely obvious: the registry must be able to identify with certainty the subject of trade mark entries so it can administer the registers, and the public likewise requires that certainty to gauge the scope of others’ rights. In day-to-day terms, however, how exact and unambiguous must the graphical and textual depictions actually be? His Honour Judge Hacon observed that acceding to Iceland’s bid would mean attributing to the competent authority and to the public a level of pedantry which, if the law...
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
