Legal News

Iqbal and another v City of Wolverhampton Council [2025] EWCA Crim 498 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision underscores the pressing obligation on businesses to secure comprehensive registration of all trade marks and designs linked to their products. Registration is both a cornerstone of brand safeguarding and the legal platform required to commence enforcement steps (including seeking criminal penalties) against participants in the manufacture or circulation of counterfeit items. Against a backdrop of evolving global tariff measures, which are pushing up the price of legitimate goods, the likelihood of fakes gaining a foothold in the market is rising. Escalating consumer prices can fuel unlawful trading, heightening the need for companies to take an anticipatory, well-planned stance on IP protection. To reduce exposure, organisations should have resilient processes to: track market movements and pinpoint likely...

Makeality Ltd v City Doggo Ltd and another [2025] EWCA Civ 400 What are the practical implications of this case? At first sight, the ramifications of this case seem confined to parties weighing up whether the IPEC SCT is the right venue. Yet forum selection is often a pivotal tactical lever across disputes of every kind. IP practitioners enjoy an unusually broad menu of forums, ranging from the IPEC SCT, through the IPEC proper and the Shorter Trials Scheme, right up to the full High Court when appropriate and necessary. In some scenarios, narrowing the dispute to a forum constrained on costs and complexity can be markedly advantageous. In others, practitioners may seek to conduct proceedings in the widest forum available, whether for tactical leverage or because the dispute’s complexity warrants it. This decision expressly identifies central factors to consider when choosing a forum. Above all, where a...

Illiquidx Ltd v Altana Wealth Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 299 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision highlights the need for precise, clear definitions and clauses in NDAs, especially concerning the boundaries of confidential information and what falls within the public domain. Equally, spelling out permitted disclosures reduces uncertainty; providing information to third parties does not, on its own, render it public or remove its confidentiality. The court will evaluate disclosures on their individual facts, with the key consideration being how far the veil of secrecy still remains. It is also prudent to set out contractually how confidential information will be handled if a commercial relationship ends or breaks down unexpectedly. Measures might include requiring confidential information (and any materials that contain it) to be returned, deleted, or destroyed. For trade secret protection, the absence of an NDA does not...

AI healthcare in Europe AI is transforming healthcare by sharpening diagnostic accuracy, forecasting patient risk, and speeding up drug discovery and development, thereby streamlining development pipelines. Predictive AI models can be trained on extensive historical clinical data to deliver reliable predictions and estimations that support a wide range of healthcare tasks. For example, by training an AI system on archives of medical images linked to specific diseases, the model can then analyse a patient’s scan to judge whether the patient has a condition in practice. Contemporary models can detect disease with high precision and, with improved confidence, uncover abnormalities that might otherwise be overlooked by human reviewers. The rapid advance of AI technologies in healthcare also opens new and attractive opportunities to secure intellectual property. While obtaining patent protection for AI-led innovations may involve navigating intricate legal and technical issues, these obstacles can be...

The major changes being introduced by the EU, specifically the EU design legislative reform package adopted by the Council of the EU on 10 October 2024 These measures comprise Directive ( EU) 2024/2823 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on the legal protection of designs (recast), together with the amendment to Regulation ( EU) 2024/2822 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024, which modifies Council Regulation ( EC) 6/2002 on Community designs and repeals Commission Regulation ( EC) 2246/2002. The package is poised to open fresh opportunities and prompt new considerations for almost all businesses active in the EU or interacting with its markets. This Law360 analysis highlights the principal updates and their practical implications for companies, setting out workable ideas on how to plan strategically for the transition. A further feature of the...

In this issue: IP and technology Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off Patents Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information IP and technology AI model providers get confirmation of delays to EU Code of Practice MLex notes that providers of general‑purpose AI ( GPAI) models — including Open AI, Google and Microsoft — have been advised that the legal deadline for a final Code of Practice supporting compliance with the EU AI Act will be missed, with publication potentially a few months away. The postponement reflects attempts to align the Code with guidance on GPAI obligations and to secure backing from leading AI companies while the US government exerts pressure. See: AI model providers get confirmation of delays to EU Code of Practice. Lack of IP ownership set to add costs for the Post Office over Horizon Natalie Welch, senior associate at Marks & Clerk LLP,...

The Post Office has spent more than £600m of taxpayers’ money to keep the flawed Horizon IT system running, even after deciding to move away from it more than a decade ago. Their ongoing dependence upon Horizon appears to arise from the 1999 contract with Fujitsu, which did not confer on the Post Office the intellectual property rights in the software. Without control or ownership of the source code, the Post Office could neither examine nor modify it, especially the crucial component that processed financial transactions. As a result, they had to rely upon Fujitsu’s assurances regarding the software’s functionality, assurances that, as we now know, were wrong. Those flaws contributed to hundreds of wrongful convictions of sub-postmasters......

EU AI Act timeline for GPAI Code of Practice Under the EU AI Act, the Code of Practice must be finalised by 2 May 2025 at the latest, and the European Commission’s AI Office is obliged to take the ‘necessary steps’ so the Code is recognised as an official compliance instrument. Yet, earlier this week the EU AI Office informed participants in the drafting work that ‘the final GPAI Code of Practice and the Commission guidelines on GPAI [are] expected to be published ahead of August 2025’. Its communication further notes: ‘ This extension of the deadline comes as a result of prioritising extended feedback cycles (as requested by all stakeholders), and to give stakeholders four weeks to respond to the consultation on guidelines’. According to the Commission’s updated website, the definitive Code will be presented at the closing plenary session and issued by August 2025,...

Hill v Touchlight Genetics Ltd and other companies [2025] EWHC 107 ( Pat) What are the practical implications of this case? Rarely in patent litigation does the outcome hinge so squarely on human shortcomings, but here it did: the claimant-inventor’s account proved unreliable. Judges are acutely aware that memory can be fragile, and over the many years of this quarrel it appears the claimant’s recollection of what happened shifted. The dispute neatly illustrates how testimony of fact fares when set against contemporaneous paperwork. Courts often attach great weight to documents made at the time. Where the two versions part company, a witness’s credibility will usually be damaged. Legal advisers often face a sensitive dilemma when evaluating a witness’s reliability—particularly where the witness is also their client. A central task for an adviser is to coolly test the merits of the client’s case, which may...

On 29 April 2025, the EU's General Court confirmed that the EU Intellectual Property Office's ( EUIPO) Board of Appeal was correct to conclude that there are insufficient visual, aural and conceptual cues to distinguish Dr August Wolff Gmb H & Co KG Arzneimittel's ' Vagisan' sign from Combe International LLC's ' Vagisil' brand. The court stated that, although the element 'vagi' hints at the goods' intended purpose, that does not negate the resemblance between the signs arising from that shared component, nor from their identical structure, cadence and intonation. The Board of Appeal determined that both marks contain the segment 'vagi', which points to 'vagina' and indicates the products' function within female intimate healthcare, and the court upheld that assessment, finding the similarities sufficient to preclude differentiation for the purposes at issue in this particular case......

In this issue Designs Patents IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Designs EU design reforms prompt a portfolio review. Law360 notes that in-house IP teams should start examining their organisations’ design portfolios in light of soon-to-arrive, strengthened European design reforms to future-proof their IP approach. See: EU design reforms signal its time to review portfolios. Court of Appeal rejects appeal in design conspiracy case ( Iqbal v City of Wolverhampton Council). The challenge to conviction and sentence for conspiracies involving counterfeit goods and the unauthorised copying of a design under section 35ZA of the Registered Designs Act 1949 was dismissed. The defendants received 31 months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The Court of Appeal upheld the Crown Court’s convictions and sentences. See: [2025] EWCA Crim...

Companies across fashion, entertainment, healthcare and gaming stand to gain from the EU’s refreshed design regime arriving on 1 May 2025. The package ushers in sweeping updates to design rights, bolsters legal safeguards and even rebrands community designs as ‘ European Union Designs’. Experts caution IP practitioners to track the headline changes as the measures start to take effect in May. Giulia Maienza, senior associate at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, warned that although roll-out will be staged, businesses should promptly audit design portfolios and refine future design plans now to stay ahead and be prepared when the full framework applies. The Council of the EU signed off the reforms in October 2024, overhauling the Directive on legal protection of designs and amending the regulation governing community designs. See: LNB News 10/10/2024 58. According to the Council, a key objective is to ‘improve the...

Barclays Bank plc v VEB. RF [2024] EWHC 3088 ( Comm) Contrary to this, the Russian bank commenced proceedings in the Russian courts. The English bank applied to the English courts for anti‑suit and anti‑enforcement injunctions, which were granted. The Russian bank then initiated arbitration proceedings, as it was originally required to do. During the contractual notice period, however, the English bank notified the Russian bank that the dispute should be transferred to the English courts. The Russian bank maintained that the English bank had waived that right......

Safestand Ltd v Weston Homes plc and other companies [2025] EWCA Civ 374 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision reminds design law practitioners that design representations must be clear enough for the court to interpret them without requiring expert evidence. Particular care is needed when defining the scope of protection sought—whether it is for a complex product or a set of articles—and deciding how best to illustrate that in the filed images. For complex, modular designs, filings should depict components consistently across all views; otherwise, they risk being read as alternative embodiments of a set of articles rather than a single product. Moreover, when submitting design registrations, practitioners should reflect on the effect of including colour and how a court may understand its use. Although Safestand succeeded in reversing the invalidity finding, achieving that result demanded exacting...

In this issue: Designs Trade marks/passing off General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information No Weekly Highlights on 24 April 2025 Designs Court of Appeal finds registered designs valid ( Safestand v Weston Homes) In Safestand Ltd v Weston Homes plc [2025] EWCA Civ 374, the Court of Appeal overturned a ruling of invalidity concerning three of Safestand’s registered designs. It concluded that the challenged designs for builders’ trestles are valid in law. In its 2 April 2025 judgment, the Court accepted Safestand’s argument that each registration represents a single modular product, and not different versions of a complex product; accordingly, the designs were not invalid for failing to portray a single product. Accordingly, Safestand’s appeal succeeded. The dispute concerned builders’ trestles and how the...

In a non-binding opinion, Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta held that the EUIPO erred by overlooking Nowhere Co Ltd’s UK trade marks when it dismissed the company’s opposition to Junguo Ye’s 2015 trade mark application for a cartoon monkey. Ćapeta noted that Nowhere Co’s registrations remained in force up to the UK’s exit from the EU at midnight on 31 December 2020, so a clash with Ye’s logo could have existed until that point. She added that, from 1 January 2021, when the UK left the EU, the EUIPO could have automatically rejected the opposition for the period thereafter. Nevertheless, the advocate general maintained that Nowhere Co continued to be entitled to invoke its protections for the interval running from 2015 to 31 December 2020......

Rukhadze and others v Recovery Partners GP Ltd and another [2025] UKSC 10 Background This appeal concerns the fiduciary ‘profit rule’. Fiduciaries, including trustees and company directors, owe a duty of loyalty to their beneficiary or principal (the person for whom they hold or administer property, eg the company in the case of a director). That duty includes a requirement that, where a fiduciary derives a profit by virtue of their position, they must account for that gain to the principal, unless the principal has given fully informed consent. The respondents to this appeal are a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (to which the claims of another such company have been assigned) together with an English LLP. The individual appellants were engaged by the respondents and occupied roles of trust and responsibility (for example serving as directors), thereby owing fiduciary duties to them. In...

Nissin Foods Holdings Company Ltd v Momo IP Llc [2025] EWHC 561 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision provides concrete direction for advisers on keeping UK trade marks alive when the listed services are delivered overseas. It clarifies proof of use where UK-facing steps occur while delivery is abroad. The issue is whether UK efforts build or maintain demand for overseas services. Brand noise in the UK will not suffice without linkage. The court accepted in principle that marketing conducted in the UK, directed at services performed abroad, can amount to genuine use if it is properly targeted and commercially substantive. But that alone is insufficient. UK activity must be justified in the relevant sector as creating or preserving an outlet for services ultimately delivered abroad. Crucially, the ruling confirms the evidential bar is not met by...

In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Designs IP and technology IP rights and competition law Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Advocate General opines that misleading use of assigned trade mark consisting of designer’s surname may warrant revocation action ( PMJC v [ W] [ X]) EU law allows a trade mark to be revoked where the proprietor’s use would mislead consumers about the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods concerned. This principle has been considered for marks made up of the surname of the designer who first created the products, particularly once that designer is no longer involved with the company owning the marks. In Emanuel v Continental Shelf, Case C-259/04, it was decided that simply cutting the link between a...

Tradeinn Retail Services S. L. v PH Case C‑76/24 What are the practical implications of this case? In practical terms, the opinion supports allowing the proprietor of a registered trade mark to obtain an injunction, grounded on a national registration in one EU Member State, against the act of ‘stocking’ infringing goods in another Member State, thus extending the effect of national registrations beyond the domestic frontier. It thereby envisages cross‑border restraint based on a single national right... What was the background? PH owns two German trade marks, ED and a device mark, registered for, among other things, ‘diving equipment, diving suits, diving gloves, diving masks and breathing apparatus for diving’. Tradeinn Retail, based in Spain, promoted diving accessories for sale on its website and via Amazon.de, deploying PH’s trade marks. Goods delivered after a test purchase did not bear PH’s trade marks. PH issued...