Our members give you their insight into intellectual property cases. If you are looking for a specific case, you can search our full library.
Instagram’s grip on the -GRAM suffix proves picture perfect, writes Oli Gray. B 3 219 888, Instagram LLC v Panathinaikos, EUIPO Opposition Division.
In disputes involving major brands, can marks’ similar elements meaningfully shift consumer perception? Charlene Nelson finds out. O/1195/25, MEGA POP podjetje za oglasevanje na prostem d.o.o v Apple Inc, UK IPO.
Using a registered word mark as part of a logo mark does not preclude a finding of genuine use – as long as the words remain the dominant element, writes Trecina Sookhoo. O/0080/26, Kilburn & Strode LLP v Easy Limo UK Ltd; O/0028/26, Kilburn & Strode LLP v EasyTerra Besloten Vennootschap; O/1148/25, Kilburn & Strode LLP v Easy Avenues Ltd, UK IPO.
No matter how famous an author is, copyright exists to protect their work, not their name, writes Matthew Harris. R 2248/2019-G, The Estate of the Late Sonia Brownell Orwell v EUIPO.
Klara Stupar considers the contrasting outcomes in two EUIPO oppositions. B 3 227 290, Alexandru Andronache v Easygroup IP Ireland Ltd, EUIPO Opposition Division. B 3 140 175, M.A.C.’s Holding GmbH v easyGroup Ltd, EUIPO Opposition Division.
A modest appetite for trade mark use ultimately meant that rights could be maintained, writes Thalia Stowell. C 64 516 (21st January 2026); R 1652/2024-2, R 2129/2024-2, R 1836/2024-2.
A figurative mark’s ambiguous design did not prevent the EUIPO finding no likelihood of confusion, writes Anna Cunningham. B 3 207 783, OP3FT v Google LLC, EUIPO Opposition Division.
The reputed nature of Red Bull’s slogan supercharged the scope of mark for which there could be a likelihood of confusion, writes Geoff Weller. B 3 081 351, Red Bull GmbH v Ahmed Mahmood Roshti Kilan Dakouri, EUIPO Opposition Division.