IP clauses

IP clauses

This subtopic contains:

•
Precedent definitions and clauses commonly used in IP agreements, and
•
Precedent IP definitions and clauses used in other types of agreements, eg employment contracts and asset and share purchase agreements

For Precedent boilerplate commercial clauses and standard definitions which may be used in IP agreements, see: Boilerplate clauses—overview and Definitions—overview.

For a summary of the law, guidance and practice upon execution of documents, along with standard execution clauses, see: Execution—overview.

Intellectual property definitions

For IP definitions, see Precedents:

•
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) definition
•
Background IP and Foreground IP definitions
•
Copyright definition
•
Design definition
•
Goodwill definition
•
Know-how definition
•
Patent definition
•
Trade Mark definition
•
Trade Secret definition
•

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

Trade mark exhaustion exceptions and copyright in industrial designs (AGA Rangemaster v UKIG)

IP analysis: The Court of Appeal upheld an IPEC decision that, while the trade mark proprietor could not object to the sale of modified versions of goods on the secondary market (due to the defence of exhaustion provided by section 12(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994)), the claimant had legitimate reasons to oppose the defendants’ activities where this created an impression of a commercial connection between the parties. The court looked at the test to be applied, while reiterating that such cases are highly fact-sensitive. The Court of Appeal also refused the claimant’s cross-appeal relating to copyright in industrial designs, finding that while the claimant’s design document was an original artistic graphic work, the related physical article itself was not an artistic work so the defendant was entitled to a defence under section 51 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CPDA 1988). In doing so, the court considered the meaning of ‘graphic work’. Written by Andrew Leese, partner at Knights Professional Services Ltd.

Actors vote to refuse image, voice scans over AI fears

Law360, London: Film and television performers in the UK have voted to refuse to have digital scans on set in aapplication to stop their voices and likenesses being replicated through artificial intelligence.

Section 11A non-use defence brings easyGroup claim to a halt (easyGroup v Jaybank)

IP analysis: The decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) in this case is a timely reminder that even a well-known brand cannot circumvent the hard evidence limits of trade mark use. easyGroup Ltd (easyGroup) alleged that Jaybank Leisure Ltd’s (Jaybank) use of EASIHIRE for vehicle rental infringed its easyHire UK trade mark registration. Judge Hacon accepted that the marks at issue were indeed strikingly similar and found confusion likely under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994). On a straightforward confusion analysis, easyGroup may have succeeded in this case, but that was not the end of the story. The trade mark infringement claim ultimately failed in its entirely, as Jaybank invoked the non-use defence under TMA 1994, s 11A, arguing that easyGroup had not made genuine use of the easyHire mark for the registered rental services in the relevant five-year period. The court agreed. easyGroup’s evidence consisted largely of later created websites and somewhat ambitious franchise material, neither of which were sufficient to establish a real market supporting commercial use. This decision highlights the sharp edge of TMA 1994, s 11A and makes clear that in the UK, enforceability depends on genuine use, not registration alone. Written by, Tamsin Knight, trainee trade mark attorney at HGF Ltd, and Lee Curtis, partner and chartered trade mark attorney at HGF Ltd.

Getty wins permission to appeal Stability AI copyright case

Law360, London: Getty Images Inc on 16 December 2025 won its application to revive part of its copyright infringement claim against Stability AI Ltd, with a London court concluding the case raised an important question about generative models that should be considered by the Court of Appeal.