Legal News

Deity Shoes, SL v Mundorama Confort, S., Stay Design, SL, Case C‑323/24 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Justice’s ruling brings helpful certainty for businesses and practitioners in the design law sphere. EU design protection does not hinge on originality. Fashion trends do not curtail the designer’s freedom in a manner that lowers the protection threshold. The doctrine of inverse proportionality applies solely where genuine (ie, technical) constraints are present. Products assembled from existing components or supplier catalogues can be protected if the resulting design is new and leaves a different overall impression on the informed user. No need exists to show a creative leap or copyright‑style originality. A reduced threshold for individual character arises only where real constraints are established. In fashion‑led sectors, trends do not count as limiting factors, so the bar for...

On Wednesday 3 December, the Advertising Standards Authority ( ASA) released three compelling rulings concerning fashion advertising. They arrive in the wake of the Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) probes into ASOS, Boo Hoo and George at Asda (see: LNB News 29/07/2022 38) and the regulator’s later guidance on environmental claims for fashion (see News Analysis: Updated CAP guidance—the environment—misleading claims and social responsibility in advertising). The latest ASA outcomes illustrate the self-regulatory body backing the statutory regulator by ‘seamlessly’ carrying its policy across the fashion sector. Moreover, this trio shows the ASA deploying its much-vaunted Active Ad Monitoring system to concentrate resources on issues it judges significant, rather than simply dancing to the tune of competitors, the media or special interest groups. This piece is by Brinsley Dresden, partner and co-head of advertising and marketing at Lewis Silkin LLP. For further detail on...

The Court of Appeal agreed The Court of Appeal confirmed that an earlier arrangement Peter Cushing made before his death, granting Tyburn Film Productions the right to digitally ‘resurrect’ him after 1994 to finish a different film, had no impact on the Cushing estate’s deal with Lucasfilm. As the judges could find no right transferred between Tyburn and Lucasfilm, there was no basis for saying Lucasfilm was ‘unjustly enriched’ at Tyburn’s expense, the court ruled. The judgment observed that the point at which a defendant’s enrichment is at a claimant’s expense remains uncertain, and that drawing the boundary between sound and defective claims is often difficult; this was not the moment to attempt to resolve it. At most, the estate may have breached an earlier contract with Tyburn concerning use of Cushing’s likeness, but Tyburn did not plead any such case, the judges held. Tyburn...

AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd v UK Innovations Group Ltd and another [2025] EWCA Civ 1622 What are the practical implications of this case? The central lesson from this case is that those trading in the secondary (refurbished or pre-used) market must proceed with care to avoid suggesting a commercial link with the trade mark proprietor where none exists. A seller in that market may legitimately employ a trade mark to indicate the origin of genuine goods, and may, in some circumstances, offer refurbished or altered genuine goods while continuing to reference that mark. Even so, the secondary seller should take concrete steps to neutralise any inference of a commercial connection with the trade mark proprietor, and should refrain from any use of the trade mark liable to imply affiliation or endorsement. Labels that fuse the trade mark with the reseller’s own signs or marks into a...

easy Group Ltd v Jaybank Leisure Ltd [2025] EWHC 3077 ( IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? TMA 1994, s 11A is often relegated to a procedural afterthought, yet this ruling underlines that it operates as a potent weapon in litigation. The provision means, in essence, that a trade mark owner can restrain use of a sign only insofar as, on the day the infringement claim is issued, the registration would not be vulnerable to non-use revocation under s 46(1)(a) or (b). Once relied upon, a s 11A defence shifts a substantial evidential load onto the proprietor: the defendant does not have to establish non-use, while the proprietor must demonstrate genuine use in respect of every relevant service. In practice, s 11A resembles a proof-of-use requirement familiar from UK Intellectual Property Office opposition and invalidity actions. Although it reflects the non-use...

Equity members, representing performers, have voted by an overwhelming margin in an indicative ballot to refuse scans while talks continue with Pact, the main trade body for British production companies. An indicative ballot is a binding statutory vote required to take industrial action. The result, Equity said on 18 December 2025, ‘shows the depth of feeling among performers determined to safeguard their AI rights’... The union will press Pact for a better deal on AI, seeking an agreement that builds in: Explicit consent Transparent terms Royalties for the use of AI-generated replicas If Pact declines to offer this, Equity will move to a statutory ballot......

High Court judge Joanna Smith indicated the photo library could challenge her decision that Stability’s use of Getty’s copyright‑protected collections of images to set the parameters of its Stable Diffusion model did not make the model an infringing copy of those images. She also noted this raises a novel and significant question of law about how the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 ( CDPA 1988) ought to be interpreted, a point not previously addressed by any court. That new question, she added, may carry far‑reaching consequences for AI models and for intangible articles such as software in general. Getty sought permission from the High Court to appeal the finding that Stability’s reliance on Getty’s protected image collections to configure Stable Diffusion’s parameters did not render the model an unlawful copy of those images. In written...

Earlier this year, the decision in Macdonald Hotels v Bank of Scotland unsettled lenders and their advisers, with obiter observations intimating that, for the ‘face value’ test to be satisfied for a deed, the document, on its face, must make plain that all parties expressly intended it to operate as a deed, rather than only those executing it as a deed. That stance differs from common practice in certain finance instruments, notably intercreditor agreements, which frequently state that only specified parties execute and deliver them as deeds and, unlike security documents, are ordinarily styled as ‘agreements’ in many instances. The City of London Law Society ( CLLS) subsequently released a note expressing its view on the comments and on how to comply with the face value test, confirming that, in its opinion, there is a measure of flexibility in the ways the face value...

Athleta ( ITM) Inc v Sports Group Denmark and another [2025] EWCA Civ 1584 What are the practical implications of this case? The decision highlights the interplay that arises when the issue of genuine use of a mark is examined in tandem with a passing off claim based on the same or a similar sign. While the legal criteria differ for establishing genuine use of a registered trade mark and for proving the creation of goodwill, the evidential foundations will frequently overlap. There will inevitably be scenarios where activity is adequate to constitute genuine use yet does not establish a link between the sign and goodwill. Where the use carries real commercial weight, litigants and their advisers pursuing revocation on the one hand and seeking to sidestep passing off on the other must assess whether the genuine use and goodwill points are likely to rise or fall...

Aga Rangemaster Group Ltd convinced the Court of Appeal to dismiss UK Innovations Group Ltd’s claim that there was no alternative way to describe its converted products. Writing for the three-judge panel, Justice Colin Birss said nothing about the retailer’s e Control Aga label was unavoidable or required. He added that simply because UK Innovations Group named its system ‘e Control’ did not grant a carte blanche to pair that word with Aga. The court further threw out the company’s contention that High Court Judge Nicholas Caddick KC’s 2024 finding—that the branding implied the e Control system came from Aga—was ‘rationally unsupportable’. Birss J rejected that characterisation, stating it was nothing of the sort and that, on the materials before the court, he would have reached the same result as Judge Caddick......

In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off Patents General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights Law360, London reports that the Court of Justice has set out the criteria for when practical items may attract copyright protection. In Mio AB, Mio e‑handel AB, Mio Försäljning AB v Galleri Mikael & Thomas Asplund Aktiebolag, Joined Cases C‑580/23 and C‑795/23, the court held that applied art is treated no differently from any other category when judging originality. See: Court of Justice clarifies copyright rules for utilitarian objects......

Fauré Le Page Maroquinier SAS, Fauré Le Page Paris SAS v Goyard ST- Honoré SAS, Case C‑412/24 What are the practical implications of this case? Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95/ EC blocks registration of trade marks that, at filing, are likely to mislead the public about the nature, quality, or geographical origin of the goods or services. The AG states a mark must contain a precise indication of those features. On that view, inserting a year, without wording that makes clear it denotes the proprietor’s incorporation date or the first manufacture of the goods, is not sufficiently specific. The focus is the filing date; if the sign risks deception, it is caught by Article 3(1)(g). For invalidity actions under that ground, outside issues — for example, whether the proprietor can legitimately claim the year as part of its heritage — are...

The Court of Justice said utilitarian products can be classified as a 'work' under the EU's copyright laws, as long as the subject matter is the author's own intellectual creation. The court also confirmed that creators may claim both design and copyright protection for the same goods, as these intellectual property rights operate in parallel and are not mutually exclusive. It rejected the idea of any rule-and-exception relationship between design law and copyright. Consequently, when considering the originality of applied art, decision-makers should not apply a tougher standard than that used for other forms of subject matter. The ruling originates from two distinct disputes involving furniture manufacturers in Sweden and Germany. In one of those cases, Swedish producer Galleri Mikael & Thomas Asplund alleges that retailer Mio AB infringed its copyright in relation to dining tables......

Lucasfilm did not benefit in any way at Tyburn Film Productions Ltd's expense, counsel said to the appeals court there on 3 December 2025, in part because it already possessed rights over Cushing's likeness and an agreement and consent from the Cushing estate to 'resurrect' him as Grand Moff Tarkin. Tyburn contends it earlier made an agreement with the late actor then, at the time, granting the company a veto over any use of his image prior to his 1994 death. That contract concerns a TV series titled ' Heritage of Horror', which never aired. Tyburn further asserts the deal permits it to effectively 'resurrect' Cushing using stand-ins and CGI to ultimately finish the programme then if the actor were to die whilst filming remained in progress......

In this issue: Confidential Information 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 Confidential Information Court of Appeal—application of service gateways to misuse of trade secret claims ( Playtech Software Ltd v Realtime SIA) In Playtech Software Ltd v Realtime SIA [2025] EWCA Civ 1472, the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s permission for Playtech to serve its trade secrets and copyright claims on Latvian defendants Realtime SIA and Igors Veliks out of the jurisdiction. Playtech contended that, after leaving its Latvian affiliate, Veliks accessed confidential pre‑launch game material via the Horizon platform, which Realtime then exploited to create competing games. The court concluded that all the impugned conduct occurred in Latvia and any UK loss was merely a...

In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents Copyright & associated rights Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Trade marks through the lens of AI-generated photos ( Getty Images v Stability AI) This News Analysis sets out the principal trade mark ramifications of Getty Images ( US) Inc v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 ( Ch), the first English ruling on generative AI, which concludes (pending any appeal) a three-year dispute between Getty Images ( Getty Images) and Stability AI ( Stability). Although much commentary focused on the copyright limb, the trade mark causes of action posed fresh issues concerning machine-generated watermarks bearing signs identical to, or reminiscent of, the claimant’s trade marks, and how responsibility is apportioned between the defendant (developer of a generative AI system) and end users. Both the copyright and trade mark outcomes turn closely on the facts....

Igors Veliks, formerly at Playtech, and his current employer, Realtime Latvia, persuaded the appeal court that the betting company lacks any entitlement to sue them in England. The judges held that any harm arising from the supposed commercial deception occurred beyond the UK, and they set aside a High Court ruling that had favoured Playtech. The court concluded that most of the loss said to stem from Veliks’ alleged misuse of trade secrets took place in Latvia, where Playtech is headquartered. As a result, assessment of damage falls to the Latvian courts, not to the English courts. Playtech maintained it had suffered a downturn in UK licensing income because of the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, but the appeal court rejected that contention. The court noted: “ This pleading is concerned only with the indirect consequences for Playtech of the...

Getty Images ( US) Inc and others v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Getty Images succeeded on trade mark infringement under sections 10(1) and 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 ( TMA 1994), but only in respect of older, largely discontinued versions of Stability’s generative AI model. The judgment emphasises that proving trade mark infringement in the generative AI sphere requires highly specific evidence and, ideally, testing with real users of the model rather than imagined users or theoretical prompts. Each allegation turned on particular images, the readability and clarity of the signs, and a close evaluation of how the average consumer would encounter the synthetic image online; broad assertions about likelihood were inadequate. For trade mark owners, effective claims should: Isolate identifiable and clear signs Link them to the exact model...

In this issue: Patents IP and AI Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Patents Court of Appeal clarifies the approach to confidentiality and corrections in FRAND litigation ( Inter Digital Inc v Optis Cellular Technology LLC) In Inter Digital Inc v Optis Cellular Technology LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 1263, the Court of Appeal set out how UK courts should handle confidentiality in patent disputes, especially in fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ( FRAND) matters. Importantly, the judgment recognises the entitlement of affected non-parties (for example, third-party licensees) to be heard on confidentiality questions. The court confirmed that a wide range of material may qualify as confidential and be redacted, and that the age or expiry of a licence does not, by...

In recent weeks there has been a surge of activity before both the Unified Patent Court ( UPC) and the national courts in the UK and Germany, arising from a dispute between Inter Digital and Amazon concerning digital streaming patents and FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licence terms. For simplicity, this piece uses the label ‘ FRAND’, although the standards at issue technically refer to ‘ RAND’ (reasonable and non-discriminatory); in practice there is no distinction between them. At the close of September, the UPC’s Mannheim Local Division, alongside the German Munich Regional Court, granted Inter Digital, on a without notice basis, the first ‘anti-interim-licence’ injunction. That order triggered further steps in the English Patents Court, where Mr Justice Meade voiced serious reservations about the submissions advanced by Inter Digital to obtain the injunction, and later, in a further hearing (also on a...