Case comments
Our members give you their insight into intellectual property cases. If you are looking for a specific case, you can search our full library.
When ‘help’ doesn’t help
This EUIPO decision shows the limits of weak elements in EU trade mark law, writes Charlene Nelson. B 3 230 804 and B 3 230 826, Swiss Pharma International AG v Zdrovit Romania SRL, EUIPO Opposition Division.
Genericism allegations go pear-shaped
Insufficient evidence ultimately weakened this case, writes Dominic Farnsworth. [2026] EWHC 360 (IPEC), Wang Zeng International Ltd v Bing Bing Foods Ltd & Ors.
The dating game
Check your calendar carefully when assessing absolute grounds, writes Giles Parsons. [2026] EWHC 386 (Ch), Parabolica Ltd v Tesla Holding a.s.
No more monkey business
A decade on, the ECJ finally dismissed this trade mark opposition, writes Rose Smalley-Gordon. C-337/22 P, EUIPO v Nowhere Co Ltd.
Designing an exit
The Court pointed out that indefinite and perpetual agreements are distinct in their meaning, writes Jasmine Sihre. [2026] EWCA Civ 192, Zaha Hadid Ltd v The Zaha Hadid Foundation.
Overstepping the mark?
Both parties were found to have strayed beyond the terms of their agreement, writes Chris Hawkes. [2026] EWHC 659 (Ch), C & J Clark International Ltd v Trek Bicycle Corporation & Anor.
Cambridge rows ahead on reputation
A place name may be more than a mere geographical descriptor, finds Gavin Stenton. O/0090/26, Cambridge Rowing Ltd v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
A hard-to-swallow decision
A drinks brand’s trade mark registration turned sour when the dairy industry successfully opposed it, writes David Birchall. [2026] UKSC 4, Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB.