While 2025 may not ultimately be remembered as a watershed year for intellectual property law, it has been an important and instructive one. Across trade marks, copyright, patents and designs, the courts and policymakers have clarified principles that businesses rely on day to day, while quietly laying the groundwork for more significant developments ahead.
In this update, we take stock of the key IP developments from 2025 and look ahead to 2026 — which has the potential to be a more genuinely groundbreaking year, particularly in relation to AI and copyright, and with several anticipated court decisions on the horizon.
IP Highlights of 2025
TRADE MARKS
1. Iconix v Dream Pairs
In Iconix Luxembourg v Dream Pairs, the UK Supreme Court considered whether confusion arising after a purchase can be relevant for trade mark infringement; an issue that brand owners have worried about for years, but which had not previously been addressed at this level.
The Court confirmed that post-sale confusion is capable, in principle, of amounting to infringement where it affects the functions of the trade mark (particularly origin and investment). It is not only the moment when a consumer decides to buy that matters; confusion arising when a product is later seen “in the wild” can also be legally relevant. On the facts, however, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that there was no likelihood of confusion, so the claim in this case still failed.
2. Thatchers Cider v Aldi
In January 2025, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision and found Aldi liable for trade mark infringement under section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act in relation to its Cloudy Lemon Cider packaging, with the Supreme Court subsequently refusing permission to appeal the decision.
The Court held that Aldi’s product would bring Thatchers’ registered trade mark to mind and that the similarities were not coincidental. Lord Justice Arnold criticised the first instance decision for construing the scope of the trade mark too narrowly. The judgment continues a growing trend of judicial scepticism towards “lookalike” products.
For brand owners, it reinforces the value of investing in distinctive packaging and securing early trade mark protection for it. For retailers and own-brand producers, it is another reminder that visual shortcuts come with legal risk.
3. Series Trade Marks – Change on the Horizon, but Not Quite Here Yet
The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has confirmed its intention to abolish series trade mark applications as part of its digital transformation programme. For now, series marks remain a useful and cost-effective option. That said, brand owners should be aware that this route is very much on borrowed time, and future filing strategies may need to assume a world in which each variation of a mark attracts its own filing fee.
4. UKIPO Guidance Following Sky v SkyKick
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Sky v SkyKick, the UKIPO published updated guidance on bad faith filings and trade mark specifications. The guidance reinforces that applications filed with overly broad specifications, without a genuine intention to use the mark (or a credible commercial rationale for the breadth of the specification), may be vulnerable to challenge.
Alongside this, the UKIPO introduced an online inspection service for trade marks and designs, improving transparency and bringing these rights into line with patents. Together, these developments signal a more interventionist approach by the UKIPO and a clear expectation that applicants take a more disciplined approach to trade mark filings.
5. Thom Browne v Adidas
The long-running dispute between Thom Browne and Adidas concerns Adidas’ attempts to enforce its famous stripe branding against Thom Browne’s use of stripe motifs on luxury clothing. Adidas relied on a portfolio of trade marks, including position marks protecting the placement of stripes on garments.
In October 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed Adidas’ appeal and upheld the High Court’s finding that the marks were not infringed. A central issue was clarity: the Court held that ambiguity in the descriptions and representations of Adidas’ position marks meant they did not clearly identify a single, consistent sign.
The case is a useful reminder that even very well-known brands are not entitled to monopolise broad design ideas. For trade mark owners, it highlights the importance of precision when registering non-traditional marks; for others, it offers some comfort that trade mark law does have its limits.
COPYRIGHT
6. AI and Copyright Consultation
The UK Government’s consultation on AI and copyright closed in February 2025, attracting more than 11,000 responses from rights holders, technology companies and other stakeholders. The consultation explored three broad policy options: maintaining the status quo, strengthening copyright protection through mandatory licensing, or introducing a broad data-mining exception.
Following the Government’s decision not to introduce AI-specific copyright provisions in the Data (Use and Access) Act, attention now turns to the consultation outcome and accompanying economic impact assessment, expected by March 2026. This will be a key development for organisations deploying or procuring AI systems trained on large datasets.
7. Getty Images v Stability AI
The Getty Images v Stability AI case was heralded as one of, if not the most anticipated IP cases of the year – with the Court being asked to consider whether the unlicensed use by Stability AI of large volumes of Getty Images’ data in the training of the Stable Diffusion AI model amounted to infringement.
However, Getty was unable to pursue its primary copyright infringement claims due to jurisdictional and procedural hurdles – meaning the case did not deliver the high-profile answers which many hoped that it would.
The High Court rejected Getty’s claims of secondary copyright infringement, holding that the model weights produced by AI training do not themselves constitute infringing copies of copyrighted works. Getty did, however, succeed on a narrower trade mark infringement claim relating to earlier versions of Stable Diffusion that reproduced Getty watermarks.
We haven’t heard the last of this case just yet, however, as Getty have been granted leave to appeal the copyright decision to the Court of Appeal
8. The WaterRower Case
In WaterRower v Liking, the High Court considered whether the iconic wooden WaterRower rowing machine qualified for copyright protection as a work of artistic craftsmanship. WaterRower argued that the design combined aesthetic appeal with functional engineering.
The Court disagreed, holding that while the design was original, it was not a work of artistic craftsmanship under UK law. The craftsmanship lay primarily in functional performance rather than artistic expression.
The case neatly illustrates the UK’s relatively narrow approach to copyright protection for functional objects, and the continuing divergence from EU law. For design-led businesses, it reinforces the importance of considering registered design protection rather than relying solely on copyright to do the heavy lifting.
PATENTS
9. FRAND and Standard Essential Patents
As a reminder, where a patent is essential to a technical standard (such as 4G, 5G or Wi-Fi), the patent owner must license it on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
In 2025, several high-profile disputes were resolved through global settlements, including between Ericsson and Lenovo, and Nokia and Amazon. UK courts continued to position themselves as an attractive forum for resolving these disputes, including by setting global FRAND licence terms.
For businesses manufacturing or selling connected products, these cases matter because they affect where disputes are fought, how quickly they are resolved, and how much leverage each side has in negotiations. The Government’s SEP consultation, which ran until October 2025, suggests further policy intervention may follow.
10. Emotional Perception and AI Patentability
In July 2025, the UK Supreme Court heard arguments in Emotional Perception, a case examining whether certain AI-related inventions fall within the “computer program” exclusion under the Patents Act. The central question is whether artificial neural networks should be treated differently from traditional software when assessing patentability.
Judgment is expected in 2026 and could have significant implications for businesses seeking patent protection for AI-driven technologies.
DESIGNS
11. UKIPO Consultation on Design Law Reform
The UKIPO continued its consultation on reforming UK design law, with proposals aimed at simplifying registration and strengthening enforcement. Of particular note is a call for evidence on potential criminal sanctions for design infringement.
Further detail is expected in 2026, but businesses that rely heavily on design protection should be alert to possible changes in both risk and opportunity.
12. Edwards v Boohoo
In Edwards v Boohoo, the High Court considered claims by a designer that Boohoo had copied her clothing designs, relying primarily on unregistered design rights.
While the claimant succeeded on some limited points, the case exposed the practical difficulties of enforcing unregistered rights in the UK fashion sector. Proving originality, defining the precise scope of the design relied upon, and evidencing copying all proved challenging.
The decision is a familiar cautionary tale for designers and brands operating in fast-moving markets: unregistered rights can be valuable, but they are no substitute for a clear and proactive registration strategy where commercial value is at stake.
WHAT LIES AHEAD IN 2026?
- The Supreme Court’s decision in the Emotional Perception case could potentially reshape how innovative technologies are protected under UK patent law.
- The outcome of the UK’s AI copyright consultation is anticipated – will we see stricter licensing requirements and greater transparency obligations imposed on AI developers? Or will the Government side with the tech companies and broaden the data mining exception to copyright infringement?
- The Getty Images appeal will likely be heard by the Court of Appeal – will we get any further clarity on the key issues posed by the case?
- The UKIPO’s proposed design law reforms could significantly change how design rights are registered and enforced, impacting strategies for fashion, tech, and creative industries.
- Trade mark practice will undergo changes with the abolition of series marks and heightened scrutiny of bad faith applications.
- We are likely to see continued clashes between AI and intellectual property rights, with more high-profile cases emerging.
FINAL REMARKS
From trade mark disputes over stripes and cider cans, to copyright battles involving AI and creative industries, and patent debates on neural networks, 2025 has been a year of consolidation and signposting for intellectual property law. The courts and regulators have clarified important principles, occasionally raised an eyebrow at over-ambitious arguments, and left some of the most difficult questions — particularly around AI — deliberately unanswered.
As we head into 2026, a wave of landmark developments is on the horizon: a Supreme Court ruling on AI patentability, strategic outcomes from the AI copyright consultation, Getty’s appeal on AI copyright claims, and reforms from the UKIPO on design and trade mark practice. How those questions are answered in 2026 will shape not just the contours of IP law, but the commercial strategies built around it. It’s certainly shaping up to be an exciting year for intellectual property!
