GenAI & IP
In December 2025, the UK Government published a progress report following its consultation on copyright and generative AI, ahead of a final report and economic impact assessment due by 18 March 2026 (it is not yet clear when the consultation response itself may be published). The consultation attracted over 11,500 responses, with an overwhelming majority expressing support for always requiring licences for using copyright works in AI training, and only 3% supporting the Government's preferred option of a text and data mining exception with rights holder opt-out. The Government will be looking to balance the views of the creative industries with its desire to encourage investment in AI in the UK.
Meanwhile, GenAI cases continue to come before the courts (you can track them in our GenAI and copyright tracker and sign up to receive alerts). Following the High Court decision rejecting Getty Images' claim for copyright infringement against Stability AI, Getty Images have been granted permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal's decision should provide useful guidance on a number of issues relating to both the training and use of GenAI models.
UKIPO design consultation
The UKIPO launched a major consultation in late 2025 on the UK's design law framework. The consultation focuses on measures to improve registration quality, particularly in the face of a perceived increase in abusive registrations (often used to extract takedowns of legitimate designs from online platforms). The consultation also addresses digital-age challenges including clarifying the scope of design protection for graphical user interfaces and animated designs, and proposing to remove protection for computer-generated designs without human authors. Further issues discussed in the consultation include potential simplification of the framework for protecting unregistered designs, the complex overlap with copyright, and the rules around first disclosure of unregistered designs (a subject made particularly complex post-Brexit).
The Government's response to the consultation is awaited but design-led businesses should note the potential for divergence following the EU design reform package in 2024 (see below).
UKIPO fee increases
The UKIPO is set to increase official fees relating to trade marks, designs and patents on 1 April 2026 (subject to parliamentary approval). Fees have not been changed for a considerable period, but the UKIPO has decided that an uplift is necessary to address inflationary rises. Fees are increasing by an average of 25% and will affect virtually all services offered by the UKIPO including applications, opposition/invalidity proceedings, renewals and recordals. Where appropriate, rights holders should look to incur relevant fees before the increases take effect.
The fee increases form part of wider changes taking place at the UKIPO under the One IPO Transformation Programme, which aims to revolutionise digital services offered by the UKIPO. Further information on the UKIPO fee increases is contained in our article linked here.
TM specifications: UKIPO practice on bad faith
We have reported in previous editions on the implications of the Supreme Court decision in Sky v SkyKick and the UKIPO's Practice Amendment Notice 1/25 in relation to bad faith in trade mark specifications.
The Practice Amendment Notice warns against applications covering excessive goods and services, overly broad terms, and class headings without genuine intention to use. Our article containing further information on the Practice Amendment Notice is here. We expect to see more decisions relating to bad faith in trade mark specifications from the UKIPO and the courts.
Recent decisions include the ENERJO case (concerning a 120 page specification spanning 13 classes which was held to amount to bad faith due to "sheer size and disparate nature" without reasonable intention to use) and the WISE case (concerning a class 9 computer software specification which was restricted to financial services software – our article on the WISE case is here).
UKIPO to discontinue series trade marks later this year
Also forming part of UKIPO's One IPO Transformation Programme, is the discontinuation of series trade marks by the UKIPO. Trade mark applicants can currently file a single trade mark application at the UKIPO containing up to six trade marks which differ in only non-distinctive matter. Series trade marks may be useful where, for example, a business is not yet sure which variant of a mark it wishes to use.
Following consultation, the UKIPO has decided to discontinue the option to file for a series of marks. This change was originally expected to take place in Autumn 2025 as part of the new digital trade marks service, but this has not yet been launched by the UKIPO. We have written about series marks and the digital transformation programme in this article.
Use of UK cloned trade marks
From 1 January 2026, EU trade mark registrations that were, on Brexit, converted into UK "cloned" trade marks (known as comparable trade marks) are vulnerable to cancellation by third parties if they have not been put to genuine use in the UK for a continuous period of five years. Because many of the newly created UK cloned trade marks had never actually been used in the UK, the UKIPO decided at the time of Brexit that the use of such marks in the EU before 1 January 2021 (whether inside or outside the UK) would count as use of the cloned UK right. As the five year window since Brexit has now passed, any cloned UK marks that have not been put to use in the UK are now at risk.
EU protection for craft and industrial products
From 1 December 2025, craft and industrial products are able to benefit from geographical indication ("CIGI") protection across the EU, marking a significant expansion beyond traditional food and agricultural products. Examples of CIGIs already registered following the launch of the EU CIGI scheme include Limoges porcelain, Lenços de Namorados handkerchiefs, and Calais-Caudry lace. Protection is available for products such as textiles, jewellery and porcelain, provided they demonstrate a genuine link between their quality or characteristics and their geographical origin, irrespective of whether the products originate from within the EU.
Producers in England, Scotland and Wales can seek EU CIGI protection by applying directly to the EUIPO. In the UK, they can also continue to protect such products through collective or certification trade marks. Producers in Northern Ireland will be able to seek EU CIGI protection (including within Northern Ireland) via the UKIPO.
EU design reform
A number of revisions to EU design law and practice took effect on 1 May 2025, such as changes in terminology and definitions, new fees and simplified processes (Phase I). Further changes will come into force from 1 July 2026 (Phase II), with EU member states also required to implement changes to their national design laws by 9 December 2027. Key Phase II developments concern application requirements and design representation and 'fast track' invalidity proceedings. The EU design law changes are discussed in our article here.
Avoiding genericism in a brand name: DRYROBE v D-Robe
The High Court has issued a rare decision considering the concept of genericism (the process by which a brand name loses its distinctiveness, sometimes called 'genericide'). Genericism presents significant challenges, in particular, for brand owners whose innovative product or service becomes known as a category term. This was the situation in the case of DRYROBE v D-Robe where Dryrobe's novel changing robe was the first of its kind on the UK market in 2011, before competitors started to enter the market in 2018.
To avoid suggestions that the DRYROBE mark had become the category term for changing robes, the claimant had implemented a robust (and "relentless") campaign to maintain the acquired distinctiveness of its mark, including correcting generic use by consumers and third parties through a range of techniques including social media campaigns, and taking legal action where appropriate. The court concluded that this robust programme of brand management countered the defendant's arguments of genericism and the trade mark was upheld as valid and found to have been infringed. The case demonstrates the effectiveness of such brand education campaigns.
Precision matters: Thom Browne v adidas
The Court of Appeal has issued its first decision in relation to the validity of 'position marks' i.e., marks that consist of a combination of a visual element and its position on goods, where their distinctive character derives at least in part from their positioning. The case concerned position marks owned by adidas, for three stripes on various articles of clothing, including tracksuit tops and bottoms. The court's decision confirms that this category of trade marks must still comply with the requirements of clarity and precision which govern "traditional" trade mark registrations, with the court finding that adidas' marks were not sufficiently clear and precise, and so were therefore invalid. The court at first instance had also found that Thom Browne had not infringed adidas' three stripe marks, a decision that was not appealed by adidas. Mishcon de Reya acted for Thom Browne in this matter.
Protection for works of applied art: Mio/Konektra
We have reported previously on the complexity and uncertainty around protection of works of applied art, both in the UK and the EU (with national courts in the EU disagreeing as to whether, for example, copyright should be available to protect the design of the Birkenstock sandal).
In December 2025, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) issued its decision in two cases referred to it from national EU courts, Mio/Konektra, providing important clarification on copyright protection in the EU. Whilst the CJEU reiterated that 'originality' is the sole requirement for copyright protection for works of applied art, and that the test for originality is no higher for such works, it also considered a number of factors that might be relevant in the assessment of that originality requirement. Separately, it introduced a new 'recognisability' requirement for assessing infringement. The decision is not binding on the UK courts but they may take it into account. The UKIPO design consultation also deals with the complex overlap between copyright and design protection for works of applied art. Our article discusses the case in more detail.
Infringement by importers and distributors: Martin v BSH
This case, concerning copyright in wine labels, is a reminder that UK importers and distributors of goods may be liable for IP infringement even if they were not involved in creating/designing the relevant goods and believed that IP matters were their supplier's responsibility. The court found that there was copyright infringement and passing off in relation to one of the wine labels in issue, and fixed liability on the UK importer and distributor of the wine bottles, as well as the Argentinian winery that had produced the wine.
While knowledge is not required for primary copyright infringement, it is for acts of secondary infringement such as importing, possessing or dealing with an infringing copy. However, a secondary infringer can be straightforwardly fixed with knowledge by putting them on notice of the claim.