IP rights and competition law

In order to reward and encourage investment and innovation, intellectual property law grants owners of intangible property the exclusive right to prevent others from exploiting their rights without their consent. IP right holders therefore have, in principle, the right to control access to (and charge others for use of) their IP rights as well as pursue enforcement of these rights through the courts where unauthorised use has occurred. However, exercising such rights may run up against competition law requirements which, broadly speaking, aim to promote open markets and curtail abuse of market power.

This subtopic addresses the interface between IP rights and competition law and highlights some of the tensions that may arise.

Chapter I prohibition and block exemptions

The Chapter I prohibition outlaws anti-competitive agreements in the UK. It reflects Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which applies in the EU. The wording of the Chapter I prohibition is set out in section 2 of the Competition Act 1998 (CA 1998).

For more information, see Practice Note: Chapter I prohibition.

Where an agreement is determined

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

EUIPO releases study examining GenAI copyright implications under EU law

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has published a study on 12 May 2025 examining the legal implications of using copyright-protected works to train generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The study analyses current EU legislation, including the Copyright in Directive (EU) 2019/790 (Single Market Directive) and anticipated provisions of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024, focusing on three areas: assessing the legal status of using copyright-protected material for AI training, evaluating rights protection mechanisms, and addressing challenges associated with the regulatory framework for AI-generated content. The report also considers the economic impact of copyright-intensive sectors and potential revenue opportunities from an emerging market for AI training data. The EUIPO has also announced plans to launch a Copyright Knowledge Centre in November 2025 to provide centralised copyright services and policy guidance.

IPO confirms permanent adoption of UK+ intellectual property exhaustion regime

The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has announced the government's decision to maintain the UK+ exhaustion regime as the permanent framework for parallel imports. The regime, in place since January 2021, allows parallel imports from the European Economic Area (EEA) into the UK when goods are first placed on the market in either the UK or EEA. Following a consultation that received 150 responses, the IPO reports that a majority of respondents favoured maintaining the UK+ regime. The decision aims to provide certainty for businesses while ensuring compatibility with the UK's international obligations under the Windsor Framework. The regime will continue to apply across all IP rights including patents, trade marks, designs and copyright.

Clarity and precision requirements for visual and verbal descriptions of trade marks (Babek v Iceland)

IP analysis: The IPEC dismissed Iceland Foods Ltd’s (‘Iceland’) application for summary judgment based on its counterclaim of invalidity against Babek International Ltd’s (‘Babek’) UK trade mark 907527963 (the ‘Trade Mark’), ultimately finding the mark to be validly registered, per sections 1(1) and 3(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994). As the Trade Mark was found to be clear and precise, there was no case to consider invalidating the registration under TMA 1994, s 47. The court was not swayed by an overly pedantic reading of the registration and relevant case law, opting instead for a pragmatic approach. The infringement case brought by Babek will now progress. It serves as a reminder to trade mark lawyers that clarity and precision must be prioritised in drafting the graphical representations and written descriptions included in trade mark applications. The judgment offers an insight into not only the court’s reasoning when considering the clarity and precision of a registration, but also the fact the court is reluctant to take too restrictive an approach even where there are perceived discrepancies between the graphical representation and written description. Written by Mark Daniels, partner at Browne Jacobson LLP and Nirmal Trivedy, associate at Browne Jacobson LLP.

Dapagliflozin—UK court reaffirms plausibility standard despite G 2/21

IP analysis: In a significant UK ruling in Generics (UK) Ltd v AstraZeneca AB, the High Court of England and Wales provided a comprehensive restatement of how inventive step and sufficiency are assessed in the UK in light of the concept of ‘plausibility’. Ian Jones, partner, of Gill Jennings & Every LLP considers the court’s ruling.