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.

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