2025 was another exciting year for those in the field of intellectual property, with some long awaited and significant decisions. These include the UK Supreme Court’s ruling in Iconix v. Dream Pairs ([2025] UKSC 25), which is an important judgment on the doctrine of post-sale confusion, confirming that post-sale confusion alone can be sufficient for UK trade mark infringement under the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 (the “UK Act”). This will be a key decision for fashion brands in particular where post-sale context is relevant to their consumer base. It is also a good reminder of the importance of trade marks beyond the point of sale. Another decision in the fashion world, Thom Browne v. adidas ([2025] EWCA Civ 1340), gave us a succinct word of caution that the distinctive character of position marks derives at least in part from their positioning. Thom Browne successfully invalidated eight of adidas’s position trade marks for being insufficiently clear, precise, and certain. On the same day, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Thom Browne v. adidas, and it also issued its judgment in Babek v. Iceland Foods ([2025] EWCA Civ 1341), another reminder to practitioners on the potential pitfalls in application drafting, especially when it comes to including trade mark descriptions. From sportswear to waterproof robes, the IPEC also handed down its decision in Dryrobe v. Caesr Group ([2025] EWHC 3167 (IPEC)) in 2025. The judgment contained an interesting analysis of Caesr Group’s claim that DRYROBE had become generic and should be revoked under Sec. 46(1)(c) of the UK Act, and highlights the need for owners of marks with low levels of distinctiveness to have in place a strategy to protect their mark from genericism. Perhaps the most anticipated case of the year was Getty Images v. Stability AI ([2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)). Discussed in detail below, this is the first English court judgment we have had on AI and IP infringement, making it a historic ruling. It can be viewed as a win for the AI industry, although it does leave some important questions answered, particularly how generative AI will interact with IP laws in the UK. In Shantell Martin v. Bodegas San Huberto [2025] EWHC 1827 (IPEC), the IPEC addressed a number of important issues, including moral rights, joint tortfeasorship, passing off, and primary and secondary copyright infringement. For importers and distributors, the decision provides a reminder to businesses to ensure that IP clearance has taken place and not to assume this has been done by somebody else in the supply chain. Moreover, it is a good example of how opting for the IPEC was the appropriate forum. Finally, we saw the Court of Appeal dismiss appeals from the IPEC on trade mark and copyright infringement in Aga Rangemaster v. UK Innovations ([2025] EWCA Civ 1622). This is an interesting case on the exhaustion of rights defence under Sec. 12 of the UK Act, and in what circumstances there will be legitimate reasons to object to fair dealing. We also saw the statutory defence to copyright infringement based on industrial designs upheld.

United Kingdom Trade Mark Cases Overview 2025

期刊论文
发表日期：

2026年3月1日

查看全文

Hannah Cramp,
Caitlin O’Hare,
Sonia Catt

摘要

2025 was another exciting year for those in the field of intellectual property, with some long awaited and significant decisions. These include the UK Supreme Court’s ruling in Iconix v. Dream Pairs ([2025] UKSC 25), which is an important judgment on the doctrine of post-sale confusion, confirming that post-sale confusion alone can be sufficient for UK trade mark infringement under the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 (the “UK Act”). This will be a key decision for fashion brands in particular where post-sale context is relevant to their consumer base. It is also a good reminder of the importance of trade marks beyond the point of sale. Another decision in the fashion world, Thom Browne v. adidas ([2025] EWCA Civ 1340), gave us a succinct word of caution that the distinctive character of position marks derives at least in part from their positioning. Thom Browne successfully invalidated eight of adidas’s position trade marks for being insufficiently clear, precise, and certain. On the same day, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Thom Browne v. adidas, and it also issued its judgment in Babek v. Iceland Foods ([2025] EWCA Civ 1341), another reminder to practitioners on the potential pitfalls in application drafting, especially when it comes to including trade mark descriptions. From sportswear to waterproof robes, the IPEC also handed down its decision in Dryrobe v. Caesr Group ([2025] EWHC 3167 (IPEC)) in 2025. The judgment contained an interesting analysis of Caesr Group’s claim that DRYROBE had become generic and should be revoked under Sec. 46(1)(c) of the UK Act, and highlights the need for owners of marks with low levels of distinctiveness to have in place a strategy to protect their mark from genericism. Perhaps the most anticipated case of the year was Getty Images v. Stability AI ([2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)). Discussed in detail below, this is the first English court judgment we have had on AI and IP infringement, making it a historic ruling. It can be viewed as a win for the AI industry, although it does leave some important questions answered, particularly how generative AI will interact with IP laws in the UK. In Shantell Martin v. Bodegas San Huberto [2025] EWHC 1827 (IPEC), the IPEC addressed a number of important issues, including moral rights, joint tortfeasorship, passing off, and primary and secondary copyright infringement. For importers and distributors, the decision provides a reminder to businesses to ensure that IP clearance has taken place and not to assume this has been done by somebody else in the supply chain. Moreover, it is a good example of how opting for the IPEC was the appropriate forum. Finally, we saw the Court of Appeal dismiss appeals from the IPEC on trade mark and copyright infringement in Aga Rangemaster v. UK Innovations ([2025] EWCA Civ 1622). This is an interesting case on the exhaustion of rights defence under Sec. 12 of the UK Act, and in what circumstances there will be legitimate reasons to object to fair dealing. We also saw the statutory defence to copyright infringement based on industrial designs upheld.