double_arrow Article Archive

double_arrow Ask an Expert

What Our Customers Say...

5.0

Based on 101 reviews

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

Jilna Shah

07:13 13 Jul 25

I've been working with Marc Maidment on pursuing a patent for my business, and I honestly couldn’t ask for a better attorney. As someone with no experience with the patent process and how it works, Marc takes the time to explain everything clearly and thoroughly, breaking down complex legal processes in a way that is easy to understand.

He’s not only incredibly knowledgeable, but also warm and approachable. No question has ever felt too small, and he genuinely cares about the success of my business. I’d highly recommend Marc to anyone looking for a dedicated, trustworthy, and skilled patent attorney.

Jon Baker

15:23 19 Mar 25

Albright IP have been brilliant from my first call all the way through to submitting our Patent Application. I look forward to working with them on future IP projects. Jon Baker - Design 360 Ltd

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

Trade Marks

Albright IP earns top-tier status in European IP law rankings

Intellectual property specialist, Albright IP, has once again been recognised among Europe’s top law firms, securing standout industry recognition in two major reports.

The firm has been named in the Financial Times’ annual report, Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms, which highlights 217 top-performing IP firms across Europe. Compiled by Statista, the rankings are based on recommendations from clients and industry peers and celebrate those consistently delivering excellence in the patent law field.

Albright IP also featured in Clarivate’s 2025 Trade Mark Filing Trends Report as one of the UK’s top 20 law firms, managing large trade mark portfolios. Ranked 18th overall, the firm has recorded 13,332 UK trade mark filings on behalf of leading global brands.

Commenting on the achievements, Robert Games, Managing Director at Albright IP, said:

“This recognition shows what can be achieved with a committed team of highly skilled attorneys focused on delivering the best for their clients, here in Cheltenham, across the UK, and internationally. We’ve filed thousands of trade mark applications, represented clients in hundreds of trade mark opposition cases, and every one of them helps a business turn good ideas and brands into lasting value. That’s an incredible accomplishment.

“Both reports reflect milestones for a firm that only opened its doors in 2007. We are so proud to be recognised in this way – but we’re not done yet.”

To learn more about how Albright IP can help you secure, protect, and commercialise your ideas, contact via email, by telephone: +44 (0) 1242 691 801, or using the form below and they will be happy to advise and guide you.

UK Customs Recordal

This article explores the importance of filing a UK customs Application for Action (AFA). It’s integral to supporting your IP strategy, and Albright IP can assist you in preparing and maintaining an application.

What is an AFA? (Application for Action)

An AFA is a means of recording a portfolio of rights, authentication techniques and relevant information with customs authorities to seek their proactive engagement and support in protecting your IP rights in the relevant market. Since 1 January 2021, in accordance with Brexit provisions, European Union AFAs are no longer valid or enforceable in the United Kingdom. As such, separate UK-national AFAs are now required for rights holders to empower UK customs authorities to uphold their IP rights.

How can it help my business?

As the cost-of-living crisis continues, a growing number of consumers are predicted to seek cheaper alternatives to branded goods. In doing so, consumers are increasingly likely to encounter replica or counterfeit products, whether knowingly or otherwise.

It is widely appreciated that counterfeit goods damage the reputation and revenue streams of legitimate businesses through diversion of sales and by substituting authentic goods with poorer quality imitations. However, less-widely appreciated are the risks posed to the purchasing consumer who may directly suffer the financial and physical impacts posed by poor quality imitations. Certain sectors are particularly susceptible to the damaging risks posed by counterfeits, not least the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries, where untested ingredients can impact consumers’ health and wellbeing.

While customs authorities regularly check imports to the United Kingdom for counterfeit goods, there is a finite time (10 days for general goods, or three days for perishables) for which suspicious shipments will be detained. On top of that, many authorities are restricted by pressure on resources.

If the authorities suspect goods infringe an IP right (Trade Mark, Design, Patent and/or Copyright), they will contact the rights holder (or their authorised Representative) to request verification of the goods in question. However, as many rights holders do not hold registered AFAs, it is simply not possible for the authorities to give notice of a suspect shipment. This could result in the dissemination of potentially infringing goods into the UK market. Recovery, and prosecution of those responsible for the importation, circulation and sale of the goods becomes an infinitely more difficult task, and the damage inflicted to brands and consumers can be extensive.

An AFA effectively bridges the communication gap, providing authorities with a direct means of liaising with rights holders, permitting swifter authentication of suspect goods before they can reach consumers. By permitting rights holders to include training materials with the application, the AFA can serve as an effective means of educating and training the relevant authorities to identify counterfeit indicators for a brand, in turn, helping to reveal unauthorised importers, exporters, manufacturers and distributors. Such materials help to build familiarity of customs authorities with business’ products, encouraging a more proactive approach to the identification, seizure and prosecution of illicit shipments, and the bad actors they are linked with. In short, the AFA is a cost-effective, proactive means of removing counterfeit products before they reach intended consumers and can serve as a powerful intelligence tool to aid and develop your IP and Brand Protection strategy.

What do I need to proceed?

Firstly, you will require UK Trade Mark Registrations for the goods you wish to protect.

A Government Gateway ID is also a necessity, so your business must be registered with HMRC. If you do not have a Government Gateway ID, creating a new account is relatively straightforward.

In advance of filing a UK AFA, we recommend compiling the following information (wherever possible) which can be submitted within the AFA:

UK Marketing catalogues and materials
Details of authorised manufacturers, as well as UK logistics partners, importers and wholesalers
Images of the products, showing the Trade Mark(s) applied to the goods
Images comparing genuine labelling to counterfeit labelling
Images comparing genuine packaging to counterfeit packaging
Images of counterfeit goods (and key counterfeit indicators)
Training materials concerning the identification / verification of counterfeit goods
A list of approved importers, exporters, manufacturers, retail partners, logistics partners
Information as to the differences between the appearance, packaging and or labelling of goods destined for the UK market, and those destined for the EU.

If you would like to discuss the requirements for filing a UK AFA, please contact our Trade Mark department via trademarks@albright-ip.co.uk where a member of the team will be pleased to assist.

Real or fake? How Trade Mark Registrations are protecting our online shopping

Almost all of us can remember when the online marketplace was born. It happened almost overnight.

No longer did you have to travel to the closest ‘big town’ or shopping centre to obtain those desired but elusive goods that you couldn’t just buy at a local shop. The ‘click-purchase’ phenomena rapidly spread from non-existence to becoming a new way of life which irreversibly changed consumer browsing and shopping behaviour.

With no need for shoppers to spend hours browsing, shopping from place to place or queuing, the objects of their desire could now be found and purchased within mere minutes. Consumer expectations were changed forever.

Much of the success of the online marketplace can be attributed to the sophisticated and impressively efficient logistics network. Goods can be picked, packed and dispatched at supersonic speeds, meaning consumers can receive their orders the next day. For some online marketplaces, even next-day delivery is simply too slow, and ‘premium’ delivery options have presented a sought after value-added service to meet consumers’ new-found impatience. Consequently, many online marketplaces have invested heavily in cutting-edge technology to evolve their logistics and fulfilment networks, culminating in regional shipping hubs, all-hours delivery and even drones. The shared aim until now has been to cut delivery times, although interestingly, the recent movement is towards optimising sustainable and environmentally-friendly delivery options, rather than the focus being solely upon speed.

As we now know, the expansion of online shopping has had an adverse effect on our local high streets; it has expanded beyond luxury items to grocery and everyday items, delivered at the touch of a button. Times have moved on.

The intrinsic relationship between shoppi

ng and technology has brought about the growing presence of advertising and purchasing functionalities on popular social media platforms. ’Facebook Marketplace’ is a well-known sales channel for users of the platform. However, many brand owners are behind the curve with the growing trend of drop-shipping and paid promotional content. For example, via ‘TikTok Shop’, sellers often harness the power of ‘influencers’ alongside time-limited discounts to generate demand and sales.

This growing shopping trend is particularly popular with younger consumers, many of whom are becoming accustomed to purchasing goods at significant discounts with little transparency as to the origin or seller of said goods. This method of shopping is expected to grow at an exponential rate, far outstripping the pace at which the respective platforms are able to regulate sellers or to build effective enforcement mechanisms for rights holders to challenge intellectual property infringements.

Unsurprisingly, the online marketplace is not without its issues. The digital environment is a perfect habitat for criminal behaviour. The internet is massive, confusing and relatively ungoverned. It transcends national borders, and the technology upon which it is based is moving faster than any laws that can purport to regulate it. This includes the regulation of cybercrime, and in particular, of online fraud and counterfeiting, which often serves as a ‘safe’ income stream for criminals who operate at little personal risk or consequence.

It must be said that most online marketplace sellers are legitimate businesses or individuals who are trying to connect with buyers in a quick, convenient and honest way. However, hidden amongst the masses are sellers of counterfeit goods, often

of inferior quality, displayed with bargain prices. These ‘unmissable’ deals take advantage of the established delivery networks of the respective marketplace, and can lull unsuspecting consumers into purchasing counterfeit goods without a second thought. The presence of these ‘rogue’ companies or individuals has a negative effect on consumer confidence, which impacts upon genuine sellers, and the online marketplace itself. The consequence may be that some consumers will choose to turn away from the convenience of online shopping, and head back to the high street, where they feel more assured. This trend represents a hurdle for the big online retailers, although it will benefit the traditional high street retailers, and halt or slow down the demise of our town centres.

To provide assurance to their customers, some online retailers, most notably Amazon and eBay, have introduced Intellectual Property infringement programmes to curb the spate of online counterfeits which have made their platforms unsafe and uninviting to both sellers and buyers. Amazon’s IP enforcement tool is known as the ‘Amazon Brand Registry’ and eBay’s platform is known as ‘VeRO’ (Verified Rights Owner Programme). These tools offer IP rights holders the ability to identify and report infringing listings, permitting scalable enforcement of illicit products and accounts, while minimising the impact posed to brands and consumers alike. By actively participating in such schemes, brand holders can build vital commercial relationships with the platforms, often resulting in a ‘brand manager’ being assigned to the retailers account, operating with an understanding of a brand or a portfolio of brands, and maximising the effect of the ‘take down’ options available.

The procedure for a legitimate brand owner to invoke these initiatives is relatively simple. To facilitate an unauthorised seller being taken down and blocked, an online form has to be completed. However, in order to qualify for either of the Amazon or eBay schemes, you must be able to verify that you are the legitimate Intellectual Property Rights holder. Beyond this, the tools are dependent upon the quality and volume of information uploaded by rights holders. While initially onerous, the more information uploaded to the platforms, including full details of relevant Trade Mark registrations, logo images, genuine product images, links to genuine online sales channels and product IDs, the more likely infringing content will be taken down quickly. As such, the Trade Mark attorneys at Albright IP strongly recommend securing Registration for your core Trade Mark rights at the earliest opportunity to maximise the enforcement opportunities that will be available to you.

It seems almost certain that bad-actors will jump ship to platforms with comparatively relaxed brand protection measures, compared to those available on ‘mainstream’ online marketplaces like Amazon or eBay. As such, rights holders must remain attuned with consumers’ online shopping patterns and trends, and proactively enforce their rights online wherever infringements appear.

As Albright IP represent owners of registered Trade Marks, we frequently receive emails from the Amazon Verification team with codes to pass on to our clients. Without a valid code, Amazon will not verify a seller, and unauthorised products will be prevented from being sold via the platform. This barrier to unapproved sellers is a great boom to genuine businesses, and provides an assurance to the customers.

However, online marketplaces are not setting themselves up as an alternative court. They will only look to protect or enforce rights that are legally established, i.e. to take note and respect Registered Trade Marks.

The initiatives described can afford protection to the online consumer and the genuine online retailer. However, to bring the schemes into operation, comprehensive Trade Mark protection is key, in conjunction with vigilant monitoring.

The team of experienced Trade Mark Attorneys at Albright IP can offer advice and guidance to support retailing in the online marketplace, with the assurance of your Trade Marks being registered, to take full advantage of the enforcement options available. Please get in touch.

Crafted in the heart of the Cotswolds: The story of Copper Lion Gin

Albright IP explore the competitive world of premium drinks in an interview with co-founder Angus Maclean and master distiller Minnie Parmiter.

Q: You’ve each taken very different paths to get here, how did you meet?

Angus: I started out in the army, then 18 years in private client insurance. During that second bit, I was lucky enough to meet what you might call a new generation of English whisky distillers. They’ve gone on to really push the domestic industry forward and it’s been so interesting to watch. But really, I’ve always loved distilling. I get it from my grandfather’s side. Today I’m busy getting our Copper Lion Gin in front of the right people, making connections.

Minnie: I was a scientist originally, until I moved to Scotland to study and became completely distracted and obsessed with distilling. Since about 2016, that journey’s covered places like Echlinville Distillery, where we had farmyard animals wandering around the distillery grounds. I’ve also worked at the other end of the scale, at huge places like Diageo, where you really learn the value of a detailed process.

I connected with Angus through my mum actually. They met, at a funeral of all places, and got chatting. He was looking for a partner to start making gin, the rest is history.

Q: There’s a lot of detail in your branding, what’s the story behind it all?

Minnie: We really try to include as much meaning in everything as we can, make it a story that only we can tell. The copper in Copper Lion, for example, is a nod to the still. All the distilling knowledge that preceded us. The copper stands for quality, so that comes first.

Now the ‘lion’ bit refers to a Cotswold Lion, that’s a type of sheep. But people expect to see a lion. So, the lion on the logo, Angus actually met that lion on his travels. He’s the youngest of five brothers and fought his way up to be head of the pride. Our mascot for challenging today’s massively oversaturated, faltering gin market.

Then there’s the really subtle details. We put braille on the labels, something I learned from the Whisky Shop. Seems like a tiny little thing, doesn’t it? But we go to tastings and people come up to us who have impaired sight, or their family members do. These details make a real difference to the experience.

Q: How does the alcohol industry approach IP?

Angus: It’s a very crowded market and spirits can be legally tricky. Clearly there are already many gins in the marketplace. For example, upon advice from Albright IP we can’t say ‘Cotswolds Gin.’ To avoid conflicting with a third party, we have to be careful and say, ‘Gin made in the Cotswolds.’ It’s a close-knit community. Local distillers all talk to one another, we’re all at the same events. So your brand is under constant scrutiny, not only from customers but from peers.

Q: What makes Copper Lion Gin unique in such a popular market?

Angus: We’re unapologetically focused on establishing ourselves in the Cotswolds. It runs through our branding, through our product. We’re lucky because a lot of people have second homes here, people from London as well as overseas. We can sell a characterful, local gin and still get exposure in other markets. Fingers crossed, that’ll make life easier when it’s time to expand.

Minnie: There are a lot of gins, brand-led gins, that are all made in contracted distillery environments. The care doesn’t go into them that is put in when you’re making it yourself. They end up getting rebranded half a dozen times, as if that will solve the flavour problem. We’re different insofar as we’re product led. We start by producing a high-quality liquid, the brand comes from that. That’s what gets people buying a second bottle once they’ve tried it.

Q: How did you start working with Albright IP? What’s the relationship been like?

Angus: We were introduced via a work contact. We went to see them, they could explain exactly what we needed. Albright IP know their IP!

Minnie: I’ve learned a lot about the way you apply for IP. You can be clever and save money. I definitely feel reassured by having them there. When IP goes wrong, you tend not to know about it until it’s gone really wrong. With Albright IP, we just get it right first time and they’ve given us some great guidelines to follow.

Q: What does the future hold for Copper Lion Gin?

Angus: New distilling premises, a new home and new drinks – whisky is high on the agenda. We want somewhere people can come and visit, do a tour, try the drinks, and we can sell directly to them. We’re looking at sites right now and there’s enormous potential for things we can do, particularly where sustainability is concerned.

If we’re creative about it, there are a lot of options. Distilleries create lots of heat, for example, so we could take woodchip from nearby forests, dry it out, and use that to create energy. Or we could use solar panels to make our own hydrogen, and run a hydrogen boiler. Once we secure a new site, we’ll start a new marketing push, and sustainability will be high on the agenda. From there, the sky’s the limit!

If you want to try Copper Lion Gin for yourself, Minnie and Angus have provided a 10% discount. Just go to their website at www.copperliondistillery.com. Then enter the discount code ALBRIGHT10.

Scam Season

Apparently, it’s that time of year – lots of our clients are receiving scam requests for payment to central European firms.

Let’s see who’s on the naughty list at the moment:

This is a similar false actor.

Official correspondence on your IP rights will be sent to your registered agent, or direct to you if there is no agent of record. Notably, these ‘renewal reminders’ are usually sent before the payment window for the IP rights opens, and therefore pre-empt the official reminders being issued.

WIPO have a consolidated list of entities issuing false requests for payment of fees, which can be found here https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/warning/pct_warning.html

If you receive one of these letters, do always contact your registered agent to confirm that it is a scam.

A year in the life of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court

It’s nearly Christmas, and soon after that it will be 2025. So I thought it would be interesting to look back at what has gone on in 2024 in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.

At the time of writing, there are 17 published IPEC judgments on BAILII in the year of 2024. Perhaps there will be one or two more before the end of the year, but 17 was also the total count for 2023, quite a drop from 2022 (30).

This of course is a small percentage of cases which are issued. Sequentially typing case numbers into the Court’s public search facility suggests there have been about 135 claim forms issued so far this year, and a similar number issued in 2023. And who knows how many lawyers’ letters were written threatening litigation which never ended up happening. Most cases settle, and that is usually a good thing.

Of those 17 judgments in 2024, nine are strike-out applications, interim applications, and various procedural wranglings. Some of them are interesting but I am going to put those to one side and look at the eight left that actually dispose of some IP dispute.

The first one of the year, Thatchers Cider Company Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd[1] is (you’d never guess) a trade mark infringement and passing off dispute about “lookalike” product packaging. Aldi are quite good at this game, and they won. There was no likelihood of confusion, and no unfair advantage taken. The case though is a nice illustration that, while the IPEC is for the smaller cases, it’s a perfectly suitable venue for a dispute between two rather large and well-known companies. Clearly this wasn’t bet-the-company stuff for either party, but they have used the streamlined IPEC procedure to resolve their dispute.

Not confusing

Other legally-unspectacular decisions on trade marks include Engineer.Ai Global Ltd v Appy Pie Ltd[2] (“Builder” is not a very distinctive trade mark for a tool used to make software) and Morley’s (Fast Foods) Ltd v Sivakumar & Ors[3] (if your evidence is “unreliable and, on some occasions, lacking in credibility or actually untruthful”, then you are probably going to lose).

Thurgood v Laight & Anor[4] is a passing off case which merits mention if only to show that goodwill and an enforceable right to prevent passing off can and does accrue even to quite small local businesses – in this case a dog grooming business where the sign “WASH WIGGLE & WAG” had been used mostly on the side of a van for about 18 months. The proprietor, a sole trader, was able to prevent a former employee from competing under the same name.

Before we leave the trade marks category, AGA Rangemaster Group Limited v UK Innovations Group Ltd & Anor[5] is an interesting story. The Defendant refurbished AGA cookers and converted them to electric operation using its “eControl System”. The Defendants asserted an “exhaustion” defence – they had, they said, every right to say that the second-hand cooker they were selling was an AGA just as if I sell you my car I can say it is a Hyundai. The conversion and refurbishment works themselves gave the Claimants no legitimate reasons to object to the use of the “AGA” mark, but in the end the Defendant went just too far with how the cookers were marketed. They sold their converted and refurbished cooker as an “eControl AGA”, and that “unfairly sought to link the eControl Cookers and the eControl System to the AGA brand”.

AGA Rangemaster also contained a copyright dispute, and is the first of a trio of cases this year which touch on the definition of an “artistic work” and the complete mess the CJEU have left us in following Cofemel[6]. Section 51 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says that “it is not an infringement of any copyright in a design document… recording… a design for anything other than an artistic work… to make an article to the design”. AGA’s design documents had been (indirectly) copied, by making a control panel. Was the control panel an artistic work? And were the markings on it “surface decoration”? The judge said “no” to both, though this was treated shortly, is perhaps questionable in parts, and it is recorded that neither party really addressed the issues. Presumably, they both saw this as a subsidiary issue in what was primarily a trade mark infringement matter which needed to fit into the two days allowed for an IPEC trial.

Not art

However, Equisafety Ltd v Woof Wear Ltd[7] and WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd[8] are all about artistic works, and in particular the famously elusive definition of a “work of artistic craftsmanship”. It has been widely thought for a while that UK law on this is just irreconcilably incompatible with the CJEU’s decision in Cofemel, but not a lot of disputes have gone to trial, and judges have found ways around the conflict in particular cases. In WaterRower however, there was no skirting around the problem. According to Marleasing[9] domestic legislation must be construed “as far as possible in conformity with, and to achieve the result intended by, the [EU] directive”, and following Brexit this still applies, at least in the lower courts, to “retained EU law”. But the Marleasing principle is an interpretive obligation, not an invitation to re-write the law. The judge in WaterRower found that it was simply not possible to interpret UK law in conformity with the EU directive and case law. No copyright subsisted in the rowing machine therefore because it was not a “work of artistic craftsmanship”. The story may not be over yet as the time for seeking permission to appeal does not start to run until the hearing on the form of Order.

Both Equisafety and WaterRower also addressed multiple versions of works, and whether a modified “version 2” of an artistic work qualifies for copyright protection as a new work. In both cases the modifications amounted to something like “functional improvements”, “practical solutions” (Equisafety), arising from “workmanlike, practical decisions” (WaterRower), and there was no originality (per EU law) in them.

Not art Not art either

In case you’ve lost count, there’s one left. Barber v Wakefield & Ors[10] is a registered design infringement about a “letterbox tool” – something used by locksmiths, security agents and sometimes the police to reach in through a letterbox to turn a handle or retrieve a key to open a door. Both parties represented themselves in this action, which was started on the IPEC small claims track but transferred, because the rules state that registered design cases must be heard in the multi-track. A few years ago there was a consultation on changing this (I wrote in to say I thought changing it would be a good idea), but things seem to have gone quiet. Perhaps that idea will be picked up again now because Barber is an obvious small claim about a registered design. HHJ Hacon seems to have handled it more or less as a District Judge would have done in the small claims track, the result was “honours are about even” and there was no order as to costs.

In Barber, the alleged infringement was found to produce the same overall impression on the informed user and therefore would have infringed. However, the making and giving away of a single product was found to have been done “privately and for purposes which are not commercial”. This seems questionable to my mind, but it hardly matters because there was only ever one of them and there is now an injunction to stop any more. If the Defendants want to make such a tool then they can, but it will have to look different. Overall, this seems like a dispute which was crying out for a bit of legal input and some sensible dispute resolution (if not outright dispute avoidance).

But what’s this? A novel legal point! The Defendant Mr. Wakefield pointed out that his allegedly infringing product had to be put together by the user, and could be put together in ways that looked like the registered design as well as ways that didn’t. HHJ Hacon could find no UK authority, and only a reference to a Dutch case the judgment of which could not be accessed in full. Given the lack of any authority or assistance from Counsel in what was essentially a small claim, the resolution of this probably needs to be taken with a bit of a pinch of salt, but what the judge decided was that “if the accused design would infringe in a configuration of the accused product likely to be used by the end user, that is sufficient to establish infringement”.

So that’s everything. No patent judgments this year (although in one of those interim decisions which I put aside, Well Lead Medical Co Ltd v CJ Medical Ltd[11], the Defendant accused of patent infringement successfully resisted an application for an interim injunction), but the Court seems to have done a pretty good job on the trade mark and passing off disputes for parties ranging from Thatchers Cider (turnover £175m) and Aldi (£17.8bn) down to Ms. Thurgood (one van). On copyright all the action has been here, and it will be interesting to see how the conclusion in WaterRower plays out in higher courts, and in the longer term in any amended legislation. Let’s see what 2025 bring us…

1[2024] EWHC 88 (IPEC) 2[2024] EWHC 1430 (IPEC) 3[2024] EWHC 1369 (IPEC) 4[2024] EWHC 2947 (IPEC) 5[2024] EWHC 1727 (IPEC) 6 C-683/17, EU:C:2019:721 7[2024] EWHC 2478 (IPEC) 8[2024] EWHC 2806 (IPEC) 9Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA (C-106/89) ECLI:EU:C:1990:395 [1990] ECR I-4135 10[2024] EWHC 3058 (IPEC) 11[2024] EWHC 951 (IPEC)

IP renewals: are you up to date?

We have had quite a few enquiries recently from people who have just realised they’ve forgotten to renew their Trade Marks or registered designs.

Why is this happening all of a sudden?

In many cases the problem seems to be that records have not been properly updated after Brexit. Many businesses took advantage of the EU-wide registration system, obtaining EU Trade Marks and EU registered designs. When the UK left the EU, every single one of these EU rights in force at the end of the transition period (31 December 2020) was “cloned” on to the UK register.

So, the geographical extent of the EU right was retained, automatically and for free, by copying the registrations on to the UK register. However, with the UK no longer part of the EU, this was done by creating a legally separate UK national registration and – you guessed it – when it expires it has to be renewed separately.

Registered designs last five years between renewals and Trade Marks last ten, so we may continue to see these ‘renewals missed because of Brexit’ for some time yet.

The good news is that usually a missed renewal can be put right without too much cost or fuss, provided it is caught reasonably quickly.

If you are less than six months late, then the registration can just be renewed by paying a modest extra fee. If you are more than six months late, but inside 12 months, then you will have to pay another fee on top of that and also provide an explanation of why the renewal fee was not paid on time. However, the UKIPO won’t be judging you too much on why you failed to pay on time – the rule is that as long as the failure was unintentional the right will be restored.

If you have registered EU Trade Marks or designs in the past, now would be a good time to check your records and check you have a system in place for renewing the UK rights when the time comes.

If you need any assistance managing your portfolio or renewing lapsed rights, please just get in touch and we will provide you with help.

ASK AN ATTORNEY

Patents for neural networks

On 19th July the Court of Appeal handed down their Judgment in Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 825. This is an interesting case about the patentability (or not) of an invention involving an artificial neural network. Of course, there are quite a lot of patent applications involving artificial neural networks (some of them drafted and filed by us for our clients), so in that respect the decision in Emotional Perception is potentially important for a lot of people.

Emotional Perception’s application was filed in 2019. After several amendments and rounds of correspondence, the application came to a UKIPO hearing in 2022. The Hearing Officer refused the application as relating to subject matter excluded from patentability under section 1(2) of the Patents Act. The law states that a program for a computer as such is not a patentable invention. The Hearing Officer in essence found that the claimed system, which included an artificial neural network, was a program for a computer as such and therefore refused the application.

Emotional Perception appealed and, at the end of 2023, the High Court overturned the UKIPO’s decision. That judgment caused quite a stir, not so much because of the result for Emotional Perception, but because of what seemed to be a very broad statement that an artificial neural network “is not a program for a computer for these purposes”. Following that High Court decision, the UKIPO updated the Manual of Patent Practice to say “examiners should not use the program for a computer exclusion to object to inventions involving ANNs”.

So the UKIPO appealed that result to the Court of Appeal. In a unanimous judgment, the Court of Appeal have now allowed the UKIPO’s appeal and so Emotional Perception’s application is refused again.

Birss LJ’s judgment is reasonably short, clear, and firmly based on authority. There are two points of general importance that come out of it:

A [trained] artificial neural network is a programmed computer. “…it is a machine for processing information… [the] weights are a computer program… For a given machine, a different set of weights will cause the machine to process information in a different way.” Birss LJ recognises that the way in which the program is “written” is different from “conventional” programs, but says that this does not matter. He points out that conventional computer programs are to some extent automatically generated anyway, in that they are created by compilers “under the direction of a human programmer” who writes the high-level code.
It does not make any difference whether the artificial neural network (or any computer program) is implemented in hardware or software. This should surprise nobody and in fact the Court of Appeal basically said the same thing over 30 years ago in Gale’s Patent Application [1991] RPC 305.

For what it is worth, I think those points must be entirely correct. There seems to be no justification for treating artificial neural networks any differently from “conventional” programs. Does this mean that artificial neural networks can’t be patented at all? No, it doesn’t. There are plenty of examples of patents covering systems which use ANNs, just as there are plenty of examples of patents covering other types of software. We have handled many of these applications ourselves.

What makes software potentially patentable is some form of “technical effect”. Both the UK Courts and the EPO have, albeit in somewhat different ways, endorsed “technical effect” as the test of what is patentable and what is not. But what is “technical”? The term is very difficult to define in words, and I won’t attempt to do so. However, despite a few questionable decisions on the borderline, the overall body of the case law over several decades now gives us a reasonably consistent guide to what software is going to be patentable and what isn’t. If the software leads to an improvement in a technical process (say, a machine in a factory runs more efficiently with the new software, or a measurement of the outside world is estimated more accurately with the new software) then that is likely to be a technical effect. A technical effect has also been consistently recognised in image, video and audio processing. However, most forms of text processing and data organisation (including much that involves sophisticated AI) are not patentable.

Having decided that artificial neural networks are to be treated exactly the same as other types of programs, the Court of Appeal proceeded to analyse Emotional Perception’s application against this background. Although it isn’t in my opinion clear-cut or easily susceptible to rigorous intellectual justification, the Court’s eventual rejection of the application does seem to be entirely consistent with previously decided cases. Although the invention in this case involved analysis of audio (which might well be technical), that audio analysis seems to be essentially assumed as possible with existing technology. The real contribution apparently lay in how the results of that analysis were used in combination of labels on the audio track to drive a better recommendation. That sort of thing has been fairly consistently rejected as non-technical.

So where does all this get us? Not, on the face of it, very much further than we were before it all began. My main emotion about the whole thing is something of the sadness of a lost opportunity. On the face of it Emotional Perception might well have come up with something quite clever, and this is definitely not always something that can be said about inventions which end up being the subject of excluded subject matter cases. It seems to me perfectly obvious that a great deal of technical skill went into developing it, and yet the well-worn path of the case law ended with rejection because of the “non-technical” nature of what it did. The opportunity was there for a decision that really got to grips with this elusive test of “technical character”, and in particular address the inequity that difficult technical work to reach one kind of product is not protected when difficult technical work to reach another kind of product is.

But, for reasons which aren’t entirely clear to someone not involved, but which possibly included a misunderstanding of the UKIPO’s arguments (or maybe just confused arguments), this core point ended up getting sidelined by distractions. Sir Anthony Mann in the High Court had understood the UKIPO to have conceded that a hardware implementation of an ANN would be patentable (because there was no program). He then reasoned that a software “emulation” of an ANN was in substance the same thing, and so must be patentable as well. The weakness in this argument will be obvious to anyone who understands that any program at all can (in principle at least) be “implemented in hardware”. Although it was apparently cited in argument, the High Court’s judgement did not mention Gale’s Application at all, which basically made this point over 30 years ago.

At least the Court of Appeal has not muddied the waters any further. They seem to have firmly returned the patentability of artificial neural networks to the status quo ante, which thankfully makes no less sense than it did eight months ago.

There might be another appeal (it would be to the Supreme Court, which really is the last chance saloon). If there is, perhaps they will get the chance to properly dig into the technical character of the invention without getting distracted.

ASK AN ATTORNEY

“Google-spoofing” – can you buy Adwords matching a competitor’s trade mark?

I have just seen the recent judgment in Parker v Skyfire Insurance reported on the excellent Civil Litigation Brief blog.

On the face of it this case has little to do with intellectual property. A car insurance company is trying to avoid paying out on a claim for credit hire charges incurred by a claimant whose vehicle was damaged in an accident presumably caused by Skyfire’s insured driver.

So what’s the IP angle? Well, Skyfire’s objection to paying the claim (one of their objections, anyway) was that the credit hire contract was voidable for misrepresentation on the basis that the claimant was the victim of “Google-spoofing”. What happened is that:

“Following the accident, the Claimant, Mr Parker, immediately attempted to notify his insurers, Hastings, of the accident. He Googled their name and rang the first number in the list of search results. Unbeknownst to him, he was in fact speaking to a claims management company…”

This pattern is apparently so common that the car insurance industry has given it a name – “Google-spoofing”. Claims management companies buy Google Adwords so that when somebody searches for the name of their insurer and keywords like “accident report”, it is a link to a claims management company, and not the insurer, which is likely to be the first result.

Is this even legal? Can you buy Adwords matching someone else’s trade mark? The point did not arise directly in this case, but in IP circles the question is quite an old one now, and it does have an answer of sorts – it depends.

Applying the CJEU’s ruling in Google France v Louis Vuitton, the Court of Appeal gave us some points of principle in Interflora v Marks & Spencer all the way back in 2015.

1. The critical question to be answered is whether the advertisement does not enable normally informed and reasonably observant internet users, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to in the advertisement originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party.
2. The trade mark proprietor is entitled to prevent the display of third party advertisements which such internet users may erroneously perceive as emanating from that proprietor or which suggest that there is a material link in the course of trade between the goods or services in question and the proprietor.
3. If the advertisement, though not suggesting an economic link, is vague as to the origin of the goods or services in question so that such internet users are unable to determine, on the basis of the advertising link and the commercial message attaching to it, whether the advertiser is a third party or, on the contrary, is economically linked to the proprietor, then this will have an adverse effect on the origin function of the trade mark.

It is not difficult to find examples of this so-called “google-spoofing” by claims management companies. A few quick searches for well-known car insurance brands followed by “accident report” revealed plenty.

It is noticeable that none of the claims management companies use distinctive brand names of their own in the google ads. The title of the ad is invariably entirely generic and descriptive – “Accident Claimsline”, “Car Accident Claim”, “Report Accident Claims Only”. It is almost as if the claims management companies want to avoid dispelling any confusion that a searcher might have by making it clear who they are actually about to call.

The closest any of the advertisements I looked at came to actually making it clear that they were not an insurance company was a statement that “We work independently of insurers to make sure your interests are protected”. And that was part of a larger block of text which might easily not be read in full.

One of the advertisements even used the term “Official number”, which in the context of a search result for a named insurance company, might be said to be an outright lie.

This kind of search will likely often be made with some urgency and at a time of considerable stress, on a mobile device, at the roadside immediately following an accident. It would not be very surprising if typical searchers do not read every word diligently before calling a number.

So do these adverts enable a normally informed and reasonably observant (bearing in mind they have just been in a car crash!) internet user to ascertain without difficulty who they are about to call? This looks very doubtful in my opinion. The vagueness as to the origin of the service in question, by the use of generic titles and no distinctive brands of their own, appears to point toward an adverse effect on the origin function of the trade mark, which leads to infringement.

So if the car insurance industry really want to reduce their exposure to credit hire claims (and there is every indication that they are costing an absolute fortune) perhaps they should look at mitigating the problem at source, by leveraging their registered trade marks to prevent the display of these adverts in the first place.

ASK AN ATTORNEY

Trade Marks – the myths and reality of UK practice

Updated, original article September 2013

10 misplaced assumptions

1. I have registered my company name and domain name, so I’ve done everything I need to do.

No, you should protect your rights on the Trade Mark register too. There are three different registers that are relevant to new businesses in the UK. These are the Domain Names register, the Companies House register, and the Trade Mark register. Availability and protection on each of these should be explored and secured. In addition, the appropriate handles should be secured across the social media sites.

Please read the full article here.

2. If I change my trade mark slightly by adding something extra, I will avoid an infringement action.

This should not be assumed. Unlike company names and domain names, Trade Marks will be compared on the basis of their similarity as well as absolute identity. As such, the owner of an established Trade Mark may be able to enforce their registered rights, or their reputation, if there is any potential for a customer to be confused. Small differences may not be sufficient to avoid a challenge, but each case will be assessed on its own merits.

3. I have a logo and it is better if I register that, rather than just the plain words.

This is not necessarily true as the strongest enforcement rights will generally be available to the owner of a word Mark that has been registered in a plain font. An additional registration for a logo will enhance the owner’s position, and this is probably best filed in black & white, unless the colour aspect is the most distinctive element of the Mark. A registration for a logo, will protect a particular version of the logo, and more than one Application may be needed if various versions of the logo exist. A ‘series’ Application will be permitted in the UK, provided the criteria fit. This can be a useful way to maximise the scope of protection, whilst keeping costs low i.e., by filing a logo Mark in black & white and colour, within a single Application, for a single filing fee. We can advise further.

4. I’m not using my Trade Mark, so I don’t need to register it yet.

This is not true. Time and budget permitting, it is wise to seek and secure a Trade Mark registration before the launch of a new product or service. Ideally, you will allow sufficient time for a Trade Mark application to proceed to the grant of registration; this takes around 4- 6 months from the date of filing. If so, you will have peace of mind against any objections (oppositions) being received from challengers against the application. In any event, the effective date of any Trade Mark right will be deemed to be the date an application was filed. You will wish to ensure that no one protects the Trade Mark before you do, either coincidentally, or by a deliberate attempt to undermine your position.

5. I have registered my Trade Mark in the UK so should be fine to use my Trade Mark worldwide.

This is not the case. Trade Mark protection is territorial, and the same Trade Mark may not be available to register or use in some territories. You should consider protecting your Trade Mark in any territory where you have a serious intent to market your product or service. If so, it is recommended that you take advantage of the very useful six month ‘priority period’ running from the filing date of your UK Trade Mark application, to decide if/where to file overseas. Any foreign filings made within this priority period will be backdated to the same filing date as your UK application. You may not be ready to expand overseas at this early stage, and if the priority deadline is missed, you can file foreign applications at a later stage, but the actual date of filing will be allocated; the backdating advantage will no longer be available. There are various cost-effective foreign filing strategies that we can recommend, such as an EUTM Application covering the 27 countries of the EU, and the International (Madrid) Registration system. We can advise in more depth relation to these.

6. I don’t think there is any difference between ™ and ® – anyone can use either.

There is a significant difference between the ™ and ® symbols.

In the UK and Europe, you are free to use the ™ symbol as you wish. This simply indicates that you regard the Trade Mark as being of commercial importance and wish it to be recognised as such.

By contrast, the use of the ® symbol is not permitted unless a Trade Mark registration has been granted. The use of this symbol is widely recognised and acts as a very strong deterrent against unwelcome copying.

7. I registered my Trade Mark years ago and it still looks similar. Why would I re-register?

To be in a strong position to either enforce or defend your Trade Mark rights, the version of the Trade Mark being used should resemble as closely as possible, the version of Mark that is registered. Small differences in the versions of the Marks may not significantly impact upon your position, but each case will be decided on its merits, and nothing can be assumed. Additionally, it is important to ensure that the scope of the products or services registered continue to be broad enough to encompass any brand extensions/product development. We recommend an annual review of the adequacy of the Trade Mark protection that you have put in place.

8. Surely, I’ll find out if someone is using or copying my Trade Mark.

Not necessarily. You will need to actively ‘police’ the marketplace and the internet, as well as the UK and any relevant overseas Trade Mark registers, to assess whether your exclusive position is being compromised. In the UK (and in many overseas territories), it is the responsibility of the owner of an earlier Registration to ‘hold up’ a new Trade Mark application by objecting to it (filing an opposition), if they are concerned. We strongly recommend that you instruct us to set up a ‘watching service’ on your behalf as soon as you have secured a registration. This will ensure that any newly filed Trade Mark applications that you may be concerned about, are brought to your attention, and we can offer early advice as to how to deal with them.

9. My business is too small; I don’t need to protect my Trade Mark.

This assumption is unwise. The cost of seeking Trade Mark protection is low compared to the costs of marketing, advertising and production. You need to ensure that your investment in the development of the new product or service is supported, and that you are well placed to enforce or defend your rights against any third parties. Reliance upon a registered right is always cheaper and stronger than solely placing reliance upon unregistered rights and reputation. You will also wish to avoid the nightmare situation where someone else applies to register your Trade Mark before you, requiring an expensive action to seek to have their application refused, or to seek to prevent their use based only upon you proving you have acquired a reputation.

10. I have chosen a Trade Mark that really describes what I do, so this is great.

Not really. Choosing a Trade Mark that describes the product or service that you provide may seem logical from a marketing perspective, but it may make it difficult for you to obtain a registration. A Trade Mark examiner will not allow a registration of a Mark that essentially describes the products or services that are provided under it. Moreover, as your brand becomes established, you will wish it to be set apart from your competitors, and choosing a distinctive Trade Mark will ensure that you or your company become uniquely identified by the consumers you are targeting, ultimately reducing the need for significant spend on marketing. In conclusion, the potential short-term gain of choosing a descriptive Trade Mark will quickly be overwhelmed.

ASK AN ATTORNEY

« Older Entries

double_arrow Article Archive

double_arrow Ask an Expert

What Our Customers Say...

double_arrow Need a Product Designer?

double_arrow Helpful Tips

Trade Marks

Intellectual property specialist, Albright IP, has once again been recognised among Europe’s top law firms, securing standout industry recognition in two major reports.

This article explores the importance of filing a UK customs Application for Action (AFA). It’s integral to supporting your IP strategy, and Albright IP can assist you in preparing and maintaining an application.

What is an AFA? (Application for Action)

How can it help my business?

What do I need to proceed?

Almost all of us can remember when the online marketplace was born. It happened almost overnight.

Albright IP explore the competitive world of premium drinks in an interview with co-founder Angus Maclean and master distiller Minnie Parmiter.

Apparently, it’s that time of year – lots of our clients are receiving scam requests for payment to central European firms.

It’s nearly Christmas, and soon after that it will be 2025. So I thought it would be interesting to look back at what has gone on in 2024 in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.

ASK AN ATTORNEY

ASK AN ATTORNEY

ASK AN ATTORNEY

Updated, original article September 2013

10 misplaced assumptions

1. I have registered my company name and domain name, so I’ve done everything I need to do.

2. If I change my trade mark slightly by adding something extra, I will avoid an infringement action.

3. I have a logo and it is better if I register that, rather than just the plain words.

4. I’m not using my Trade Mark, so I don’t need to register it yet.

5. I have registered my Trade Mark in the UK so should be fine to use my Trade Mark worldwide.

6. I don’t think there is any difference between ™ and ® – anyone can use either.

7. I registered my Trade Mark years ago and it still looks similar. Why would I re-register?

8. Surely, I’ll find out if someone is using or copying my Trade Mark.

9. My business is too small; I don’t need to protect my Trade Mark.

10. I have chosen a Trade Mark that really describes what I do, so this is great.

ASK AN ATTORNEY

LONDON MEETING ROOM