Legal News

In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents Designs Copyright & associated rights IP and technology General IP Lex Talk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& A Useful information Trade marks/passing off The ghost of Brexit past—a road to nowhere? The Court of Justice has determined that UK common law passing off stemming from use of a trade mark in the UK can no longer serve as a legitimate ground to oppose an EU trade mark filing post- Brexit. This ruling finally lays the ‘ghost of Brexit past’ to rest and has broader consequences for trade mark practice before the EU Intellectual Property Office ( EUIPO). Authored by Lee Curtis, partner and chartered trade mark attorney at HGF Limited. See News...

A refreshed second version of the EU code of practice for generative AI has been presented to developers and users, featuring milder, adaptable pledges and generally softer, more flexible commitments overall. Under the EU’s AI Act, makers of tools such as Open AI’s Chat GPT and Anthropic’s Claude must tag synthetic outputs in machine-readable form, while users must flag deepfakes and other material of public significance. This updated voluntary code, intended to help meet the Act’s transparency rules and facilitate compliance, scales back several proposals, recasting elements judged to exceed the AI Act’s remit as optional actions rather than firm obligations. The text adds that the European Commission will further define the reach of transparency duties and any exceptions in forthcoming guidance to accompany the code, clarifying how scope and related carve-outs should apply in...

The UPC's Court of Appeal On 6 March 2026, the UPC’s Court of Appeal paused the patent infringement proceedings that Dyson Technology Ltd ( Dyson) had initiated against Hong- Kong-based rival hairdryer maker Dreame International ( Hongkong) Ltd ( Dreame) and a Spanish business acting in the EU as its ‘authorised representative’, in order to obtain guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union on how the actions should progress. Dyson had requested that the UPC grant a preliminary injunction preventing Dreame from marketing hairdryers said by Dyson to infringe one of its patents across UPC territory, and also in Spain, which has never acceded to the EU’s patent court. The UPC’s Hamburg Division then issued an injunction restraining two Dreame companies, together with Eurep Gmb H ( Eurep) — described as an authorised representative for Dreame in Europe — from...

Stephen Thaler maintained in his October 2025 certiorari petition that the government agency had significantly exceeded its remit by implying a human-authorship rule that the statute does not explicitly contain. The D. C. Circuit upheld the Copyright Office’s stance last year, concluding that, although the Copyright Act leaves ‘author’ undefined, several sections suggest authors must be human, including provisions allowing an author to pass ownership interests to a spouse or heirs. The justices offered no explanation for turning down the petition. Thaler has sought to register a two-dimensional image titled ‘ A Recent Entrance to Paradise’, generated by an AI he designed and refers to as the ‘ Creativity Machine’......

EUIPO v Nowhere Co Ltd, Case C-337/22 P, ECLI: EU: C:2026:71 What are the practical implications of this case? The most immediate practical implication for parties in EUIPO contentious trade mark disputes is that the judgment finally lays to rest any reliance on UK-founded IP rights created before the Brexit transition ended on 31 December 2020 ( IP completion day) as grounds of attack, whether in oppositions or invalidation actions. In effect, it ratifies the EUIPO’s choice to halt, at IP completion day, all unresolved contentious trade mark cases based solely on UK rights, drawing a clear procedural line. Its reach is broader, however. Where a right is not in force on the date the EUIPO issues its decision in contentious trade mark proceedings, it cannot sustain a challenge—be that because of Brexit, revocation, cancellation, or non-renewal. In truth, this largely reaffirms the EUIPO’s settled...

Parabolica Ltd v Tesla Holding AS ( The Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, intervening) [2026] EWHC 386 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling delivers clear guidance for those who lodged comparable UK filings derived from pending EU applications under Article 59(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement. It likewise assists parties contemplating challenges to such filings on absolute grounds, including accusations of bad faith. As might be expected, the court revisited the leading authority of Sky v Sky Kick [2024] UKSC 36 and construed the language of the Withdrawal Agreement before determining the outcome, serving as a timely reminder to practitioners of the principles set out in both. In handing down its judgment, the court concluded that, when assessing bad faith under TMA 1994, s 3(6), the operative date is the EU filing date, rather than the EU...

In this issue: Trade marks Patents Copyright & associated rights Design 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 Pear Pressure—joint tortfeasorship for company secretaries clarified ( Wang Zeng v Bing Bing) This dispute involved rival greengrocers and two unusual pear varieties protected as registered trade marks, ‘ Mountain Pear’ and ‘ Yu Lu Fragrant Pear’. In Wang Zeng International Ltd v Bing Bing Foods Ltd [2026] EWHC 360 ( IPEC), the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ruled for the proprietor, Wang Zeng International Ltd ( WZI), against Bing Bing Foods Ltd and its sole director, Mr Bingtao Wang, who accepted using identical signs for identical goods without permission. The defendants contended the signs were merely descriptive names of pear cultivars and should be ruled...

The Court of Appeal concluded that nothing in the overall terms of the 2013 licensing agreement supports the contention that only the architect could terminate the arrangement, as opposed to the company, Zaha Hadid Limited. Sir Colin Birss, the Chancellor of the High Court, presiding over a three-judge panel, explained that the contract’s wording shows the term was meant to be ‘indefinite’ rather than to continue ‘in perpetuity’. Put another way, it does not claim to bind the parties forever. The arrangement can be brought to a close and, from the language used, one would infer it was capable of termination by either party on reasonable notice. In December 2024, Judge Adam Johnson held that the agreement did not confer on the company a right to terminate on reasonable notice. The High Court judge then refused permission to appeal his ruling. He stated he could not...

Wang Zeng International Ltd v Bing Bing Foods Ltd and others [2026] EWHC 360 ( IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? Names for product varieties can be registrable as trade marks. Creating a new English designation for a variety (such as ‘ Mountain Pear’ for the gong pear) may qualify as a registrable and enforceable mark, provided it is not simply the varietal name itself. Witness credibility. The ruling underscores the importance of credible testimony. The court wholly rejected a defence witness whose credibility was ‘irreparably damaged’ by not disclosing a financial dispute with the claimant, and preferred the claimant’s trade witness, whom it found both credible and reliable. Practitioners should probe for potential conflicts of interest at the outset of working with any witness. Joint tortfeasorship clarified. Applying the Supreme Court’s ratio in Lifestyle Equities CV v Ahmed [2024] UKSC 17, the court...

The High Court found that there was no reasonable prospect of Spyros Melaris proving at trial that he had single-handedly made the pseudo-documentary, which has now been thoroughly debunked, or that he was entitled to a copyright claim for its exploitation. Judge Richard Hacon entered summary judgment for Mindhouse Productions Ltd, holding that Melaris’s assertions of title and authorship were negated by contracts in which he assigned his rights. He remarked to Melaris, “ I’m sorry the documents were against you.” The judge said it was impossible to square the director’s account with 2002 and 2006 agreements recognising that Orbital Media Ltd owned the film’s copyright. Melaris’s October claim alleged that Mindhouse misrepresented the provenance of Alien Autopsy. The company—set up by filmmakers Louis Theroux, Arron Fellows and Nancy Strang—was said to have downplayed Melaris’s ownership while advancing producer Ray Santilli’s false tale that the film was a...

In this issue: Patents Trade marks Copyright and associated rights IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Patents Tenets of patentability affected by the UK Supreme Court ( Emotional Perception v Comptroller of Patents UKIPO) On 11 February 2026, the UK Supreme Court ( UKSC) handed down a seismic ruling that reshaped how exclusions from patentability, ie subject matter not eligible for patents, are appraised and applied. For good measure, the UKSC went further still, clarifying the very nature of an invention, and offering detailed direction on the manner in which inventive step/obviousness ought to be assessed. It is a generational judgment; one that will both endure and also drive immediate, practical changes to patent practice. The ruling sweeps away entrenched UK obstacles to protecting innovations across ‘all fields of...

Statement follows: The British Equity Collecting Society ( BECS) is moving to shield audiovisual performers’ rights against unauthorised AI training. BECS has unveiled firm measures to protect its membership, audiovisual performers, whose recorded performances are now being exploited, without consent or remuneration, to develop artificial intelligence tools. Developers of AI have drawn on performers’ recorded material to train their models and to output new content. In the UK, such activity violates performers’ exclusive rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Throughout the EU, it likewise infringes those exclusive rights. Nevertheless, certain AI companies have sought to defend this conduct by invoking the EU text and data mining exception in Article 4 of Directive ( EU) 2019/790 and related national implementations......

The Court of Appeal rejected Salts Healthcare Ltd’s renewed bid to hold Pelican Healthcare Ltd responsible for infringing one of its ostomy bag patents, finding that the rival’s Moda Vi range did not include weld portions that run all the way to the base. Nonetheless, Justice Richard Arnold allowed Salts’ appeal on the novelty of one claim (which the earlier judge had set aside) and on pre‑transfer costs in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court before the matter was then moved to the Patents Court. Salts began proceedings against Pelican in 2022, and later challenged a decision that had thrown out its allegation that the competitor was infringing one of its patents via its Moda Vi pouches. The trial judge also determined that one of Salts’ patented claims was invalid, but approved Salts’ amendments, the judgment records. Salts maintained that the......

The Court of Justice concluded that the General Court had improperly inferred that the EU‑ UK Withdrawal Agreement contained express rules for opposition proceedings. Such an interpretation would have permitted earlier UK intellectual property rights to stretch across the EU after the transition period lapsed, yet that was not so, the Court of Justice held. It added: the General Court committed an error of law by failing properly to consider the legal effects of the transition period’s end and the territoriality principle of trade marks on the opposition disputed in this case. The ruling came after a decision in proceedings pursued by the Japanese company Nowhere Co Ltd against an individual’s 2015 application for a figurative sign depicting a small ape with the words ‘ Ape Tees’ below. Nowhere opposed the application relying on three prior signs it had used in the UK...

The European Commission is about to present its Chips Act 2.0 The Commission is set to unveil a refreshed Chips Act, yet its success over the flagging first version will hinge on whether decision-makers absorb lessons from past missteps. When adopted in 2023, the sector was grappling with global supply-chain shortages while heavyweight economies such as the United States, China and South Korea were committing billions to expand domestic production. The EU’s plan sought to scale up R& D, back the creation of European ‘mega fabs’ through public subsidies, and establish a tool to foresee and manage supply-chain emergencies. Increase R& D in this area Support ‘mega fabs’ in Europe via public funding Create a mechanism to anticipate and handle supply-chain crises Three years later, the initiative can scarcely be labelled a triumph. Investors, analysts and business leaders are now scrutinising where Europe will steer its...

Emotional Perception vs Comptroller of Patents UKIPO [2026] UKSC 3 What are the practical Implications of the case? To displace what had been viewed as an arbitrarily administered and subjective assessment (the now disapproved Aerotel approach that muddles the inquiry into inventiveness), the ruling holds that a claim need only specify any form of hardware — for example, the use of a computer, a computer-readable storage medium, or another technical means — to avoid the statutory bar in s.1(2) UK Patents Act ‘ UKPA’. That threshold is strikingly low. This wholesale shift in method opens avenues to secure protection for innovations across other fields, provided there is a technical consideration that yields some kind of technical advantage. Yet what counts as ‘technical’ or ‘technology’ still demands careful articulation within the application’s description when setting out the invention. Where the technical...

In this issue: Designs Copyright Patents Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Designs No account of profits for unjustified threats of IP infringement proceedings ( Luxe World v Touch of Vogue) The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in Luxe World Ltd v Touch of Vogue Ltd [2026] EWHC 148 ( IPEC) determined that an account of profits cannot be awarded for claims concerning unjustified threats under sections 26–26F of the Registered Designs Act 1949. This approach appears equally applicable to comparable statutory unjustified threats provisions across other IP laws. A practical upshot is that the strategy drawn from Lifestyle Equities v Sportsdirect.com Retail [2016] EWHC 2092 ( Ch) cannot be used to postpone payment of the substantial court fee where the monetary claim is...

On 11 February 2026, Fox Williams LLP confirmed it acts for independent publishers regarding prospective copyright infringement actions against multiple AI makers, among them Anthropic, Open AI and x AI. All of these major tech giants have been sent letters of claim outlining worries that copyrighted works may have been exploited to teach their large language models without any authorisation. Fox Williams added that Google, Meta and rival companies are required to clarify the ways they relied on content, including books and journals, when constructing their AI systems and tools......

Luxe World Ltd v Touch of Vogue Ltd and another [2026] EWHC 148 ( IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? The primary takeaway is that the remedy of an account is unavailable to claimants pursuing claims based on unjustified threats of infringement proceedings. This approach is expected to carry across to all unjustified threats causes of action, because the statutory wording is largely uniform, and the same rationale supports refusing a stand-alone equitable remedy in matters of this nature. A further, practical consequence is that the analysis in Lifestyle Equities v sportsdirect.com Retail [2016] EWHC 2092 ( Ch) cannot be invoked to postpone payment of the sizeable court fee on an unquantified money claim where the complaint concerns actionable threats rather than infringement of IP rights. A corollary is that equitable arguments cannot revive an account in such threats claims, and...

Background Dairy UK Ltd ( Respondent) v Oatly AB ( Appellant) [2026] UKSC 4. The appellant, Oatly AB ( Oatly), a Swedish enterprise, manufactures and markets oat-derived foods and beverages as substitutes for dairy. The respondent, Dairy UK Ltd ( Dairy), is the representative trade body for the UK dairy sector. In April 2021, Oatly secured registration of the trade mark ‘ POST MILK GENERATION’ for specified classes of goods. The question on appeal concerned whether that mark was valid for oat-based food and drink items. In November 2021, Dairy sought a declaration of invalidity relying on section 3(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 ( TMA 1994), which bars the registration of any trade mark where its use is prohibited in the UK by any enactment or rule of law other than trade mark law. Dairy contended that the Regulation creating a common...