IP disputes

IP disputes

IP disputes may involve the typical IP rights such as patents, trade marks, rights to claim passing-off, copyright, design rights and confidential information/trade secrets.

For more information about the key IP rights, see Practice Note: IP right comparison table.

Particularly in the digital age, causes of action that arise out of ‘traditional’ IP rights may also be wrapped up with other legal issues such as defamation, data protection, and advertising and marketing regulation.

This topic contains guidance on strategic and practical steps for dealing with IP disputes, including ways of trying to avoid them in the first place.

Pre-action considerations

When considering starting infringement or invalidity proceedings, there are many strategic issues to take into account. The first step is often to draft an appropriate letter of claim or cease and desist letter. For more information, see Practice Note: How to draft a letter of claim in an IP dispute.

For examples, see Precedents:

•
Cease and desist letter—IP infringement
•
Letter of claim—patent infringement
•
Letter of claim—trade mark infringement
•
Letter of claim—passing off
•
Letter of claim—copyright infringement
•
Letter of claim—design right infringement
•
Letter

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.