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.
Threaten at your peril!
This judgment identified a crystal-clear motive, says Carl Steele. [2025] EWHC 1239 (Ch), Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd & Ors, High Court.
Unpicking the label
Designers forfeit certain rights when assigning patronymic trade marks, but new owners should not push the boundaries too far, says Shaun Anderson. C-168/24 – Opinion, PMJC SAS v [W] [X], [M] [X], [X] Créative SAS.
Legacy agreements in the internet age
Territorial rights remain enforceable online, says Sobia Ramzan. [2025] EWCA Civ 343, Merck KGaA v Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC & Anor, Court of Appeal.
Game on
Ultimately, there was no likelihood of confusion, writes Milena Velikova. T-242/24, Versiontech, Inc v EUIPO – Verizon Trademark Services LLC, General Court.
Faith and bad faith
Joel Smith on trade mark overbreadth post-SkyKick. O/0369/25, Unite the Union v Anglican Foundation, UK IPO.
Why the grille was grilled
Even a minimum degree of distinctive character is sufficient, says Robert B Franks. R 2316/2024-1, Mercedes-Benz Group AG v EUIPO.
Under the hood
Skechers’ mark (and garment) lacked the necessary coverage, reports Jade MacIntyre. T-206/24, Skechers USA v EUIPO, General Court.
An absolute earful
Joe Francké comments on a failed appeal against criminal conspiracy charges over counterfeit earphones. [2025] EWCA Crim 498, Iqbal & Anor v City of Wolverhampton Council, Court of Appeal.