double_arrow
Article Archive

double_arrow Ask an Expert Attorney

reCAPTCHA


double_arrow
What Our Clients Say ...

5.0
Based on 102 reviews
powered by Google
Andy Matthews profile picture
Andy Matthews
10:42 13 Mar 26
What can I say about Albright IP? They state 'Excellence in Intellectual Property' and that is exactly the service I received. I was really worried about the patent application for my new product and the team at Albright swept in and saved the day in a swift and professional manner, making me feel completely at ease and in safe hands from the outset. I cannot recommend Alright IP enough they are simply a fantastic company!
Martin Hastings profile picture
Martin Hastings
17:07 13 Nov 25
Excellent, professional service
26dragon76 profile picture
26dragon76
15:31 23 Jul 25
A truly exceptional experience – thank you Albright IP!

I want to personally thank Charlie Heal , Emily Fox, Cara McAtee, and the entire team at Albright IP for their hard work, dedication, and professionalism in helping me submit my first ever patent: the Baffer Ball fire suppression system.

From the very first meeting, Charlie and Emily made everything feel clear, comfortable, and respectful. They listened carefully to my ideas, even though I’m not from a technical or legal background – I’m a painter and decorator by trade. But they believed in my vision and treated it with such care and seriousness that I felt truly supported as an inventor.

Over several months, we worked closely by email and phone. Charlie and the team guided me step by step to build one of the strongest, clearest, and most professional patent drafts I could have hoped for. The claims they wrote are powerful, and the language used shows how deeply they understood my invention. They didn’t just file a document – they helped shape a legacy.

Charlie, even though he is young, is incredibly professional and experienced. I am amazed at how he managed such a complex project with kindness, patience, and precision. Emily and Cara were also fantastic throughout.

This was not just paperwork – this was my dream since childhood. And Albright IP helped me make that dream real.

💬 I look forward to working with them again on future patents. The Baffer Ball is just the beginning – and I am proud that Albright IP was there from Day 1.

Thank you so much again — from the bottom of my heart.
— Morteza
See All Reviews


double_arrow
Need a Product Designer?


double_arrow
Helpful Tips

Do I have to identify the designer?
It is possible to waive the name of the designer when filing a European Community Design, but you should be sure that you have the rights to the design

UKIPO increases official fees, and practice and policy changes are underway – the key takeaways for Trade Mark owners and IP practitioners

by | Apr 17, 2026

TM logo surrounded by padlock, magnifying glass and guard dogs

UKIPO changes: Key takeaways for trade mark owners

In the last few months, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has issued a transformative practice update that will impact upon the scope of UK Trade Mark protection. This will affect the Trade Mark rights that can be secured, the way those rights will be managed and enforced, as well as the official fees that must be paid. A separate review is underway that will impact Designs, and we will report on that once it is released.

Some aspects of the proposed changes are already in place, and others will come into play within the next 18 months, as explained in more detail below.

Index

Increases in the official fees at the UKIPO

Effective from 1 April 2026, the UKIPO official fees are increasing across all areas of IP, including Trade Mark filing and prosecution. See this link: Intellectual Property Office fees to increase from April 2026 – GOV.UK This will inevitably increase the overall costs of applications, recordals and renewals.

Abolishing Series Trade Marks

Within the next 18 months, there will be a phasing out of the “series” filing option, which allowed applicants to file up to six similar Marks (e.g., logo in different colours) under one application and fee. Critics highlighted the provision created frequent invalid applications and added complexity at the examination stage.  However, the ‘old’ system provided significant benefits; under the practice to date, a valid series affords a broad scope of protection at a much lower cost than filing separate applications, which will be the only option going forwards.

Launching Digital Access and Public Transparency

As part of a broader IP digital overhaul, the UKIPO is enhancing digital access:

  • The One IPO Search Tool: This was launched in January 2025 for Patents and will extend to include Trade Marks and Designs, allowing users to search across all IP assets with greater ease.
  • Online Public Document Access: Trademark and Design documents (e.g., examination reports and submissions) will be made accessible online. It is not yet clear whether this will only be post-Publication of an Application, so as to correspond to practice at the EUIPO. In any event, applicants will be able to request confidentiality over documents or parts of documents.
  • The UKIPO intend to pilot mediation sessions for unrepresented parties, aiming to resolve Trade Mark disputes more efficiently and cost-effectively. However, the obvious benefits of being represented by a qualified Trade Mark attorney cannot be underestimated.

Bad Faith Threshold Tightened

The ruling in the Supreme Court case of Sky v Skykick in late 2024, determined that Trade Marks filed with overly broad specifications without genuine intention to use them can be considered bad faith, rendering them at least partially invalid.

This decision led to the UKIPO issuing updated guidance in June 2025, with immediate effect, advising Trade Mark Examiners to:

  • Object to manifestly broad specifications i.e. filing for all 45 Classes, or for all goods in Class 9.
  • Require commercial justification if an applicant includes broad terms without further specifying what is intended to be covered i.e. the broad terms, “computer software,” or “clothing,”
  • If an objection is raised, an applicant will be given the usual two-months within which to justify the specification filed or amend it to conform to the new practice standard.

End of EU Use being relevant for UK Comparable Rights

After Brexit, EUTMs and International Registrations designating the EU automatically became UK ‘comparable’ Registrations. As of 1 January 2026, only genuine use in the UK is now recognised, and use of a Trade Mark in the EU will cease to qualify as being valid evidence of use in any UK proceedings.

This shift places UK holders of ‘comparable’ Marks (derived from EUTMs) at higher risk of revocation if their Mark hasn’t been actively used in the UK market within the relevant 5-year period. As such, businesses are advised seek our advice as to how to regularly:

  • Audit their Trade Mark portfolios
  • Ensure their Trade Marks are in use in the UK, and be ready to evidence this
  • Keep good records of relevant use, or details of exceptional circumstances as to why use in the UK was prevented.

Allowing Partial Replacement of UK Trademarks

Effective as of November 2024, partial replacement of UK Trade Marks with International (Madrid) System registrations is permitted, even if the latter only cover a subset of goods/services. Previously, full coverage was required.

This flexibility means Trade Mark owners can streamline their portfolio by replacing UK rights with International Registrations, whilst retaining UK protection for other goods not covered by the IR.

Summary and Implications for Trademark Owners

The recent developments mark a clear shift toward modernisation, transparency, and rigor in UK Trade Mark practice. Whether you’re an IP specialist, business owner, or brand manager, here are a few key takeaways:

  • Act now: Ensure EU use is supplemented with genuine UK use, and be ready to evidence this.
  • Consider how to modify Trade Mark filing strategies before the UKIPO in anticipation of the series option disappearing.
  • Be precise: File applications with focused, commercially justifiable specifications to avoid UKIPO objections.
  • Leverage the Madrid System: Use new flexibility to streamline international filings while retaining necessary UK protection.

Author

  • Julia House, Trade Mark Director

    Julia is a hugely experienced Trade Mark Attorney and a Trade Marks Director. She is able to call upon a wealth of knowledge acquired in-house and in private practice; making her well-placed to provide informed, commercial advice in relation to the issues at hand. Julia qualified as a British and European Trade Mark Attorney in 1991.

    Ask Julia A Trade Marks Question:

    reCAPTCHA

    View all posts