IP and tax

The UK government has consistently sought to position the UK as one of the world’s most attractive environments for innovation and enterprise. This has involved developing a number of tax benefits incentivising innovative businesses at both investor and business level and for businesses at each stage of their lifecycle. These tax benefits include:

  1. patent box

  2. research and development (R&D) tax reliefs

  3. capital allowances for purchases of:

    1. know-how

    2. patents, and

    3. R&D

  4. business asset disposal relief (formerly entrepreneurs’ relief)

  5. venture capital trusts

  6. the enterprise investment scheme, and

  7. the seed enterprise investment scheme

Patent box tax regime

The aim of the patent box regime is to provide an incentive for companies to develop and retain patents and other qualifying IP within the UK. For more information, see: Patent box—overview.

R&D tax reliefs

Companies may be entitled to corporation tax relief in respect of qualifying expenditure that they incur on R&D. For more information, see: R&D

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest IP News

Court of Appeal considers relationship between pictorial representations and written descriptions in trade marks (Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd)

IP analysis: On 23 October 2025, The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal filed by Iceland Food Ltd (Iceland) in trade mark infringement proceedings, following a decision in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) to refuse Iceland’s application for summary judgment on its counterclaim for invalidity of Babek International Ltd's (Babek) UK trade mark registration. Iceland had applied to invalidate Babek's registration on the basis that the registered mark did not meet the requirements under section 1(1) and section 3 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994), arguing that the registration lacked the necessary precision and clarity to identify the mark, based on alleged inconsistencies between the verbal description, the pictorial representation and the colours claimed. The Court of Appeal found that Judge Hacon had applied the incorrect test in determining when colour hues must be specified but, having reconsidered the issues the court concluded that Babek's mark complied with the conditions for registrability, being a single, clear and precise sign, and dismissed Iceland's appeal. The judgment affirms that, when assessing a trade mark, the categorisation of the mark, the pictorial representation and the written description are all relevant to defining the mark to be protected, with the purpose of identifying a single, clear and precise trade mark. Written by Alice Martins, Registered Trade Mark Attorney, and Helene Whelbourn, legal director, at Lee & Thompson LLP.

View IP by content type :

Popular documents