GenAI & IP
In March 2026, the Government published its long-awaited Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, together with an economic impact assessment, following its consultation issued at the end of 2024.
The Government confirmed that it will not introduce copyright reform at this stage, and stepped back from its previously stated preference to allow scraping of copyright works for AI training with a rights-holder opt-out. For now, therefore, existing copyright laws continue to apply.
The Government intends now to undertake further research in various areas. It will publish a consultation on digital replicas (deepfakes) in summer 2026, and will publish an interim report on labelling of AI-generated content in autumn 2026. As noted in the Commercial and Technology section, the EU AI Act's transparency rules e.g. relating to labelling of deepfakes and other certain AI-generated content come into effect on 2 August 2026.
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). Most of the 130+ cases are taking place in the US. In the UK, following the High Court decision rejecting Getty Images' claim for copyright infringement against Stability AI, Getty Images' appeal will be heard in November 2026. The Court of Appeal's decision should provide useful guidance on issues relating to both training and use of GenAI models. Decisions are also anticipated in Germany (Gema v Suno, re the music generator tool) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (Like Company v Google re snippets).
Potential removal of copyright protection for computer-generated works
The Government's March 2026 Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence indicated that it intends to remove the existing copyright protection for computer-generated works under section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Currently, where a work is generated by a computer with no human author, copyright subsists for 50 years and is attributed to the person who made the arrangements for the work's creation. The UK is one of only a small number of countries which provides this form of protection.
The Government has concluded that this provision is unclear in the context of authorial works and has no economic benefit, and has formed the provisional view that the protection should be removed (a final decision is still to be made and the Government will continue to monitor the position before acting). Even if the Government takes the step of removal, AI-assisted works that are created with meaningful human creative contribution may still be protected by copyright, as will AI-generated entrepreneurial works, such as sound recordings. Businesses generating content using AI tools should be aware that outputs with no meaningful human authorship may, in future, attract no copyright protection.
As part of its consideration of potential reforms to design law, the Government may also remove protection for computer-generated designs (see below re design reform).
Design law and practice reform: UK
In 2025, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) launched a major consultation 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). It 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 has been delayed and is now not expected before autumn 2026. Design-led businesses should note the potential for divergence following the EU design reform package (see below).
In the meantime, the UKIPO has issued a Designs Practice Notice relating to digital designs, which clarifies and simplifies the approach to registering as designs graphic symbols and icons, graphical user interfaces, and animated or dynamic designs.
Design law and practice reform: EU
On 1 May 2025, Phase 1 of revisions to EU design law and practice took effect, including changes in terminology and definitions, new fees and simplified processes. Phase II changes came into force on 1 July 2026. Key Phase II changes include new design representation requirements (removing the previous limit of seven static views and enabling animated and dynamic representations), simplified invalidity procedures, and improved access to unregistered design protection.
EU member states must also implement certain changes to their national design laws by 9 December 2027.
UKIPO One IPO transformation programme
The UKIPO is currently conducting a transformation programme, including plans for a new digital trade marks service.
As part of this, it intends to discontinue the ability to file a series of trade marks. 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. The change will take effect when the new digital trade marks service launches, though the launch date has not yet been confirmed. We have written about series marks and the digital transformation programme in this article.
IP protection in Jersey
From 1 August 2026, there will be significant changes to Jersey's intellectual property framework. From this date, trade marks can be registered directly in Jersey, ending the current dependence on first obtaining a UK registration. To facilitate this, a new IP registry has been established under the Jersey Financial Services Commission (JFSC).
International trade mark registrations designating the UK (under the WIPO system) will no longer automatically extend to Jersey, and so applicants will need to designate Jersey separately. Transitional provisions will protect existing UK-designated registrations, automatically adding Jersey designations.
Extensions of international patent and design treaties are also anticipated (though the dates still to be confirmed), which will extend some UK patent and design protections to Jersey automatically.
Website blocking order re weight loss medication
The High Court has granted a website blocking injunction to Novo Nordisk in relation to websites selling counterfeit/unlicensed/prescription-only medicinal products (Ozempic, Wegovy etc).
The Court granted the website block in relation to the four websites on the basis that their activities involved trade mark infringement, passing off, and also criminal breaches of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012. This is the first website blocking application before a court concerning counterfeit/unlicensed prescription-only medicinal products.
The Court noted that any form of civil or criminal wrongdoing will suffice as a basis for granting a website block. It went on to consider the usual principles before granting the order, noting in particular the potential risk to public health / reputational damage to the applicant.
The MHRA had failed in its attempts to take down/block access to the relevant websites and had asked for the trade mark owner's assistance in doing so, which led to the application being made.
Trade mark licences: register at UKIPO to protect your claim
In May 2026, the Court of Appeal decided Lifestyle Equities v Frasers Group (formerly Sportdirect.com), with important consequences for brand owners and their licensees.
The Court held that the trade mark proprietor could not recover losses suffered by sub-licensees in infringement proceedings as the relevant licences had not been registered at the UKIPO (under the provisions for voluntary registration of transactions affecting registered trade marks).
The Court also confirmed that, whilst there is no time limit for making an application to register a transaction, and registration may have retrospective effect, ordinary limitation rules still apply: the six-year limitation period runs from the date of infringement, not from the date a licence registration is applied for. On the facts, the relevant sub-licences had not been registered, in order to preserve commercial confidentiality, and the sub-licensee loss claims were statute-barred.
Brand owners operating through licensing and sub-licensing arrangements, particularly those in the retail and consumer goods sector, should audit arrangements to confirm that key licences have been registered, and factor this into enforcement planning.
EU definition of 'pastiche' in copyright law
The CJEU has delivered its long-awaited ruling in the Pelham II music sampling case, providing the first authoritative EU definition of 'pastiche' in copyright law. The case concerns the use of a two-second rhythmic sample from Kraftwerk's recording Metall auf Metall, and whether this could be permitted as pastiche.
The CJEU held that a work qualifies as pastiche where it: evokes one or more pre-existing works; is noticeably different from those works; and uses characteristic protected elements of the source material in a way that engages in an artistic or creative dialogue that is objectively recognisable as such. The UK courts are not bound by this decision but may take it into account.
Questions of pastiche are particularly interesting in the context of GenAI, with such tools being used regularly to create an image in 'the style of'. Pastiche defences are likely to be relied upon where works created using GenAI objectively have a pastiche character.
Damages for infringement of luxury trade marks: Fendi Italia Srl & Ors v Rolo Fashion Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 1703 (IPEC)
In this July 2026 IPEC judgment, HHJ Hacon awarded £213,000 to Fendi Italia Srl, Loewe, Christian Dior Couture and Celine (all LVMH-owned brands) against a social media influencer and her company for selling counterfeit luxury goods, including some described as higher-quality 'superfakes', sourced from sites including AliExpress. The court awarded £200,000 for lost profits and £13,000 on the user principle in respect of sales that did not deprive the claimants of a direct sale. On the user principle, the judge held that damages could be assessed on that basis even where the trade mark owners would not have licensed their marks to the defendant. However, no damages were awarded for reputational harm: the court found that the buyers understood they were purchasing counterfeits and did not associate responsibility for quality or conduct of the supplier with the brands. Brand owners and retailers should note the court's approach to quantifying losses.