IP snippets: keeping pace with changes in UK and EU intellectual property law

Intellectual property law rarely stands still, and the UK is currently experiencing a number of noteworthy shifts.  Here below is a round-up of recent and forthcoming developments across trade marks, designs and patents.

Trade mark tightening: series marks to be withdrawn

The UKIPO has confirmed that “series marks” (the often misunderstood mechanism allowing multiple near-identical marks to be filed under a single application) will be phased out.  There is no official date as yet; the cut-off may coincide with the launch of the new digital trade mark service (though this is some time away given the One IPO patents service is first to go live in early 2026).  For now, series applications remain available, but brand owners should plan ahead: once series availability is withdrawn, each logo or stylisation variant will need its own application.

This change will push up costs and require sharper filing choices- in practice, deciding which versions of a mark truly justify protection, and which can safely be left unregistered

The UK’s move aligns its practice more closely with the EUIPO, but strips away one of the UK system’s quirks that many had quietly relied on.

Thaler v UKIPO: no shortcut on AI inventorship or deadlines

Earlier this month, in Thaler v Comptroller-General [2025] EWHC 2202 (Ch), the High Court dismissed Dr Stephen Thaler’s latest attempt to salvage his DABUS applications.  Having first insisted that his AI machine, not he, was the inventor (rejected by the Supreme Court in 2023), Dr Thaler most recently tried to name himself as inventor.  The Court held that this about-face rendered his Form 7 statement “obviously defective” given his consistent admissions that DABUS conceived the inventions autonomously.

The judgment also makes clear that applicants cannot use hearings or appeals to stretch compliance deadlines.  Under s.13(2) Patents Act, applications are deemed withdrawn once time limits expire, unless properly extended.  The decision reinforces two themes in UK practice: inventors (for now) must still be natural persons, and procedural timetables bite hard.

Opposition backlog: UKIPO promises faster decisions

Trade mark oppositions in the UK are taking far longer than brand owners might expect.  Current estimates put the journey from claim to decision at around 1.5 years on the papers, and 2.5 years if a hearing is involved.  Even once the evidence stage or hearing is complete, it typically takes ten months to receive a decision.  With 787 cases pending, the UKIPO is carrying a significant caseload.

The good news is that the Office has set itself clear targets to cut decision times down drastically by 2027/28.  For now, however, parties should factor in extended timelines when advising on UK oppositions; whether that means delayed market entry clearance for applicants (if they want to monopolise use of their trade mark before product launch), or prolonged uncertainty for opponents.  The UKIPO’s transparency is welcome, but the reality is that UK opposition strategy today requires patience.

Designs 2.0: the UK’s system under the microscope

This month the UK Government has launched a consultation on the most significant overhaul of design law in a generation.  Proposals for the UK’s £100 billion design sector cover everything from design examination, bad faith provisions and simplifying processes, to re-thinking how computer-generated designs should be treated.  For overseas practitioners, the big question is how the UK’s post-Brexit disclosure rules will align (or clash) with EU systems, and whether the UK will strike a different balance between design and copyright.

With AI-generated works and fast-moving product cycles in the frame, clients may find that registered ‘designs’ are no longer the poor relation of patents and trade marks, but a right that clients can no longer afford to overlook.

Green Channel goes green(er): UKIPO’s push for environmental innovation

The UKIPO’s ‘Green Channel’ fast-track scheme for environmentally beneficial inventions is seeing record use.  Patent applications and grants through the channel continue to reach new highs, with growing uptake by green-tech innovators.  Notably, overseas applicants now account for almost a quarter of all requests.  Still, usage remains modest compared to the potential pool of eligible inventions, suggesting opportunities are being missed.

Specialist representation: why local advice matters

As ever, taking specialist local advice in relation to potentially valuable IP rights, and attempts to monopolise these, is always worthwhile.

Our IP team at Humphreys Law is always available on any and all matters of UK intellectual property law and practice (and on EU trade marks and designs). We are accredited direct representatives in both the UKIPO and the EUIPO, and are always pleased to receive enquiries.

This piece was written by Tristan Morse and Robert Humphreys.  Do please reach out to either of them or to a member of the wider team if you would like to discuss matters relating to intellectual property or commercial law generally.

All the thoughts and commentary that HLaw publishes on this website, including those set out above, are subject to the terms and conditions of use of this website.  None of the above constitutes legal advice and is not to be relied upon.  Much of the above will no doubt fall out of date and conflict with future law and practice one day.  None of the above should be relied upon.  Always seek your own independent professional advice.

Humphreys Law