Boilerplate clauses

This subtopic focuses on boilerplate clauses in commercial business-to-business agreements. For information on commercial clauses more generally, see: Commercial clauses—overview.

For information on boilerplate in business-to-consumer contracts, see the section on ‘Consumer boilerplate’ below.

For information on boilerplate in public sector contracts, see the section on ‘Public sector boilerplate’ below.

The role of boilerplate

Lawyers work on a huge variety of transactions, but all of them will in some way involve written agreements. All of those agreements should contain some boilerplate clauses.

‘Boilerplate’ is the term used to describe the clauses that are included in an agreement to deal with the mechanics of how it works and those legal points that are relevant to most transactions. For further consideration of the role and importance of boilerplate clauses, see Practice Note: The role of boilerplate.

Boilerplate clauses are generally found at the beginning and the end of an agreement. Such clauses are often thought of as standard, miscellaneous provisions, but this is a very dangerous view to adopt. It is not unusual for a boilerplate clause to be the cause of litigation. Since a boilerplate clause

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest IP News

Wherefore art thou milk? (Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB)

IP analysis: The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that Swedish dairy alternative Oatly cannot use the trade mark ‘POST MILK GENERATION’ on its oat-based food and drink products. This decision focuses on a longstanding cornerstone of food law and the application of defined designations. While the result is not necessarily surprising from the perspective of food regulation, it is the first time the UK courts have considered the application of designations and is a significant decision on the application of assimilated law following the UK’s exit from the EU. It also serves as a reminder that when registering a trade mark, legislation on protected terms needs to be considered. Written by Katharine Mason, principal associate at Browne Jacobson LLP.

UK trade mark rights don't apply to pre-Brexit EU disputes

Law360, London: Europe's top court ruled on 5 February 2026 that intellectual property owners cannot rely on earlier UK trade marks in European opposition proceedings that began before Brexit unless they can show that those rights continued in other Member States after the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

Medical device maker can’t revive stoma bag patent case

Law360, London: An ostomy care company failed on 19 February 2026 to revive a patent infringement case, after an appellate court held that a rival's drainable pouch for collecting waste in colostomy patients was missing some crucial patented elements.

When a name becomes a brand—The role of trade marks in the Beckham dispute

IP analysis: When Brooklyn Beckham published a series of statements on Instagram on 19 January 2026, much of the public’s attention focused on the emotional details of his rift with parents David and Victoria Beckham. But among the allegations of wedding-day tensions, cancelled dresses and family disagreements, one claim in particular caught the attention of trade mark professionals: Brooklyn’s allegation that he was pressured in to ‘signing away the rights to my name’ in the weeks leading up to his wedding. Claire Breheny and Tanya Rahman of Mathys and Squire consider the issues.