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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Open AI said it is weighing its options after a German court held its models infringed copyright by retaining, memorising and reproducing song lyrics, a move that could potentially become a landmark for European creators challenging generative AI systems. The Munich Regional Court found the US company's AI had stored and echoed nine sets of lyrics by German artists contained within the repertoire of GEMA, the German music rights organisation that filed the claim in court (see here). An Open AI spokesperson said the company disagreed with the judgment and was reviewing its next steps and options, adding that it concerned only a narrow tranche of lyrics and would not affect the millions of people, businesses and developers in Germany who use its technology every day. GEMA said this marked the first instance in Europe where the use of...
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off Patents Confidential Information General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights Copyright through the lens of AI generated photos ( Getty Images v Stability AI) This commentary summarises the principal copyright ramifications emerging from the first English judgment on generative AI, Getty Images ( US) Inc v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 ( Ch). The decision was long anticipated by the creative and technology sectors, and by the government, which has so far not resolved the tension created by AI developers’ use of copyright works. Although neither side secured an unequivocal win, the ruling has reignited debate about secondary copyright infringement in the digital era. The judgment...
HL Display v Black Sheep Retail Products In HL Display v Black Sheep Retail Products, the Hague local division ( LD) of the UPC invoked its long-arm jurisdiction in respect of infringement in particular of a European patent validated across a range of UPC, non- UPC and non- EU territories. HL Display issued infringement proceedings against Black Sheep, a Dutch company, concerning a mechanism that fixes shelf accessories to a shelf. The patent remains effective in multiple jurisdictions, including UPC contracting member states (for example the Netherlands, France and Germany), EU Member States outside the UPC (such as Ireland and Poland), non- EU Lugano contracting states (including Norway and Switzerland), and states outside both the UPC and EU (such as the UK and Liechtenstein). Black Sheep denied infringement and alleged the patent was invalid due to both added matter and an absence of...
Getty Images ( US) Inc and others v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The progress of the dispute and the court’s judgment underline how challenging it is to enforce copyright when works are used, without consent, to train artificial intelligence models, particularly generative AI. Both sides are major global businesses, capable of bearing the rigours and expense of court proceedings. The litigation featured substantial procedural complexity and technical hurdles. An application for summary judgment An expert list Contests over the breadth of disclosure and tools needed to probe Stability’s gigantic unstructured data sets The judgment runs to over 200 pages and tackles novel copyright issues that would intimidate even highly sophisticated parties. As dependence on AI grows by the day, actions against AI developers are likely to be out of reach for all but the...
What are the practical implications of this case? Inter Digital Inc and other companies v Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others [2025] EWCA Civ 1263 delivers clear direction for those engaged in patent litigation, extending to third parties with a stake in confidential material at issue. Notably, it was the non-parties—rather than Apple and Optis—who sought permission to appeal the High Court decision. The court’s acknowledgement of third-party rights may prompt greater participation by non-party stakeholders where disputes turn on third party licences. By backing a single approach to redactions and outlining how factual mistakes can be corrected, the court has sharpened understanding of the treatment of confidential information in UK proceedings. Even so, the judgment stresses that any departure from open justice must be exceptional and justified by compelling reasons, so applicants must articulate and justify their proposals. Citing his reasoning in Unwired Planet v...
Early TM Screening Although pre-assessment checks have already been available within the EUIPO’s online filing forms, the new Early TM Screening consolidates them into a single, dedicated and user-friendly tool. As the office noted, this helps businesses and legal representatives prepare filings more quickly and with greater confidence. With some functions driven by artificial intelligence, the tool will immediately analyse a variety of potential issues, including possible conflicts with existing trade marks and domain......
Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1341 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision adds clarity to how UK courts will evaluate trade marks comprising a visual element alongside a verbal description. The Court of Appeal held that interpretation must consider three aspects, and that none outweighs the others: the classification as a figurative mark; the image shown in the representation; and the accompanying written description. The court emphasised parity between these components. A verbal description of a figurative sign need not catalogue every slight visual nuance. Nevertheless, where a description is provided, applicants should ensure it aligns with the depicted image. Any inconsistency may expose the registration to invalidity challenges, on the basis that the trade mark lacks the requisite clarity and precision. In short, descriptions can be concise, but they must...
In this issue: IP and technology Copyright & associated rights Patents Designs Lex Talk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information IP and technology Getty secures a pyrrhic success in the UK Stability AI dispute ( Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd). In Getty Images ( US) Inc v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 ( Ch), a London judge on 4 November 2025 accepted that AI heavyweight Stability AI produced a small number of images infringing the stock library’s trade marks, yet Getty could not demonstrate that the underlying model breached its IP in this landmark matter. See: [2025] EWHC 2863 ( Ch) and News Analysis: Getty gets pyrrhic victory in UK stability AI case... Copyright & associated rights Where the postcodes are— High Court finds database right...
In a 205-page ruling, High Court judge Joanna Smith determined that certain 'synthetic' pictures carried watermarks matching those of i Stock, the Getty Images subsidiary. Yet she identified just a single case in which earlier releases of the Stable Diffusion system reproduced an infringing Getty watermark. She also concluded there was no proof of any UK user generating Getty Images or i Stock watermarks, Judge Smith ruled. She added that it is 'impossible' to quantify how many such watermarks have been produced 'in real life' that might count as infringing. She emphasised the practical uncertainty surrounding any real-world tally of potentially infringing watermarks. ' Although Getty Images succeed (in part) on their trade mark claim, my conclusions are historic and very narrow in scope,' she noted. The AI firm further avoided Getty’s attempt to pin copyright infringement liability on it. The High Court...
IDDQD Ltd v Codeberry & Smith, Royal Mail Group Ltd v Codeberry & Smith [2025] EWHC 2561 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Rulings on database right infringement are infrequent, so this judgment offers valuable direction for practitioners in this field. It matters especially to digital enterprises working with extensive datasets sourced from third parties. The court confirmed that the sui generis database right in the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 ( CRD 1997) safeguards significant investment in collecting, checking and arranging information. Early-stage companies cannot depend on indirect or ‘open data’ sources where those datasets embed protected content. The judgment also clarifies that employing licensed material to ‘cleanse’, ‘validate’ or ‘update’ one’s own dataset still amounts to extraction or re-utilisation when substantial elements of another database are carried across. The court further touched on...
Although stressing that 'nothing in this opinion is intended to suggest a view on whether the allegedly infringing outputs are protected as fair uses of the original works', US District Judge, Sidney H Stein, refused Open AI's motion to dismiss the authors' prima facie copyright infringement claim arising from Chat GPT's outputs. The lawsuit consolidates ten separate claims filed in various jurisdictions alleging that Open AI and its financier Microsoft used copyright protected material to train the models that power Chat GPT. In his ruling, Judge Stein first concluded that the consolidated class complaint 'squarely alleges that Open AI had access to plaintiffs' works and that Chat GPT's allegedly infringing outputs are based on plaintiffs' works'. He then further determined that 'a reasonable jury could find that the allegedly infringing outputs are substantially similar to plaintiffs' works', explaining that, although the Chat...
A trio of justices has affirmed findings that trade marks depicting three vertical stripes running the length of Adidas garments ought not to have been registered. The court concluded the marks lacked sufficient clarity and precision. The deficiency arose in part from a mismatch between the pictorial depiction of the stripes contained in the application and the stated placement of those stripes on Adidas clothing, the justices explained. At the appeal, counsel for Adidas contended the lower court had adopted a flawed method for assessing the registrability of position marks—an uncommon category of trade marks. Yet Justice Richard Arnold held that rulings from European bodies establish that 'a written description that embraces a multiplicity of signs does not comply' with the conditions for registering trade marks. In 2021, Thom Browne issued High Court proceedings seeking to revoke a number of trade marks...
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents IP and AI Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Court of Appeal upholds validity of trade mark in counterclaim for invalid registration ( Babek v Iceland Foods) In Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd, the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division) rejected Iceland’s appeal from the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, which had refused Iceland’s counterclaim seeking a declaration that UK Registered trade mark No 00907527963, owned by Babek, had been invalidly registered. The sign at issue was a gold and black figurative mark. The appellate court examined compliance with the three distinct, cumulative criteria for registrability: it must be a sign; the sign must be capable of graphical representation; and it must be capable of...
The Court of Appeal concluded that Babek International Ltd’s trade mark—a gold oval featuring embossed ‘ BABEK’ lettering—has a written description that accords with its visual depiction. Accordingly, Justice Richard Arnold stated that it is a single sign, namely the sign shown in the image, and is capable of registration. The judgment further notes that, contrary to Iceland’s contention, the verbal description does not conflict with the pictorial element, nor does it generate any uncertainty or ambiguity about the subject matter of the registration. The dispute originates from Babek’s March 2024 allegation that Iceland, without authorisation, used a gold ‘ BABEK’ logo protected as a trade mark on its own meat products, even after Babek ceased supplying meat goods to the supermarket in 2020......
In this issue: AI and IP Patents General IP Confidential Information Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information AI and IP AI and copyright—creatives write to the Prime Minister Rachel Alexander of Wiggin LLP reports on a recent letter to the Prime Minister, backed by numerous figures and organisations across the creative industries, asserting that the government’s current approach to shielding copyright from prospective AI-driven infringement ‘fails to account for international and UK human rights law’. With any follow-up to the government’s consultation—closed in February—still outstanding, the signatories accuse the government of ‘actively ignoring the rights of copyright holders…since the general election’. See News Analysis: AI and copyright—creatives write to the Prime Minister. Patents EPO finalises 2026 guidelines following user consultation on evidence standards and AI patentability The European Patent Office ( EPO) has completed its work on the 2026 EPC, PCT- EPO and Unitary Patent...
The letter marks the newest sign of rising worry and frustration across the creative sector, as the government has yet to outline its approach to AI and copyright while the technology becomes more sophisticated by the day. As things stand, we continue to await the outcome of the major AI and copyright consultation launched at the end of last year, which we discussed previously......
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Trade mark/passing off Patents Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights Paddington Bear wins injunction against knock-off souvenirs Law360, London: The owner of Paddington Bear has obtained a temporary injunction against a London souvenir distributor it has accused of copyright infringement, only weeks before a new musical is due to launch. See: Paddington bear wins injunction against knock-off souvenirs. Trade mark/passing off No set-off clause effective against defence of circuity of action ( Alaska Airlines v Virgin Aviation) In Alaska Airlines Inc v Virgin Aviation TM Ltd [2025] EWHC 2505 ( Comm), the court gave summary judgment in favour of Virgin Aviation on sums owed under a contract with Alaska Airlines, despite a circuity of action defence grounded in unjust enrichment; the unjust enrichment claim was rejected as flawed on proper...
Alaska Airlines Inc v Virgin Aviation TM Ltd and another company [2025] EWHC 2505 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The principal outcomes of Mr Justice Foxton’s analysis can be stated as follows: Where an unjust enrichment claim founded on failure of basis is invoked to stop payment of a contractual amount, the correct characterisation is that this engages the defence of circuity of action (para [49]). In that scenario, circuity of action does not mean the debt is never due; rather, it supplies a defence to liability. A broadly drafted no set off clause captures such a defence, so summary judgment can be granted (para [52]). To reach those conclusions, Foxton J reviewed a range of authorities in which no set off provisions were relied upon (see especially para [47]), and he also considered and clarified other...
On 9 October 2025, the High Court approved Paddington’s request against KAF International. Speaking to Law360 on 10 October 2025, Jim Dennis, an intellectual property disputes solicitor at Simkins LLP, commented on the decision, saying the bear’s owners had 'decided enough was enough' while preparing to launch a West End musical in November 2025......
In this issue: Trade mark/passing off Patents Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& A Useful information Trade mark/passing off Damages enquiry in trade mark infringement—economic benefits approach preferred over comparables analysis ( Merck KGa A v Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC) The High Court delivered judgment in an uncommon enquiry into damages arising from breach of contract and trade mark infringement, concluding that: (1) compensation should be determined by reference to a hypothetical licence fee; (2) the evidential record meant a comparable‑licence analysis was not a dependable platform for valuing the notional licence; and (3) in those circumstances, the suitable basis of valuation was the economic benefits method. Employing that method, the court derived the putative fee from the licensee’s (ie the defendant’s) operating costs...
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
