Geographical Indications – a new scheme for the UK from 1 January 2021

In the same way that trade marks already registered as EU trade marks before the end of transition will be replaced in the UK by equivalent rights post transition, geographical indications (GIs) (by this we refer to protected designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed) registered under the EU scheme prior to the end of transition will continue to apply across the remaining EU states post-transition and will also be replaced in the UK by rights under the new UK GI scheme.

However, those GIs registered under the EU scheme from 1 January 2021 will not apply in the UK (this includes all GIs, once registered, where applications were still pending at 1 January 2021).  After 1 January 2021, applications for protection made under the EU scheme for Great Britain (GB) localised GIs, i.e. applications made by producers from England, Scotland and Wales, will be treated as “third country” applications by the EU scheme.

From 1 January 2021, the UK will set up its own GI scheme which will be managed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The scheme will be open to producers from the UK and from other countries worldwide. New GIs can be registered under the scheme from 1 January.

The UK scheme will cover the geographical names of food, drink and agricultural products (including beer, cider and perry), spirit drinks, wine and aromatised wine. These are the same categories protected under the EU scheme, as under the Withdrawal Agreement, the relevant EU regulations will be incorporated as UK law (unless the UK and the EU come to a different agreement as a result of free trade negotiations). The UK scheme will use the designations of Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG), which again mirrors the designations available under the EU scheme.

The UK government has issued guidance (Protecting food and drink names from 1 January 2021 (28 September 2020)) on the new scheme, which also provides additional clarification on the interrelationship between this scheme and the EU scheme. From 1 January 2021, the EU scheme will no longer apply to the UK as it does to members of the EU – see the comments made by the European Commission in its Notice to stakeholders – Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU rules in the field of geographical indications (6 July 2020).

Current EU scheme: UK GIs registered under the European scheme before the end of the transition period should continue to receive protection in the EU, but applications that are pending with the EU at the end of the transition period will no longer cover the UK.

Under the current (and continuing) EU scheme, to register a product name as a geographical indication, EU producers have to address their application to national authorities for scrutiny. The Member State concerned thereafter forwards the application to the European Commission, who examines the request following the procedures laid down in the above listed EU legislation.

For non-EU product names to be registered as geographic indications in the EU, producers send their applications either directly, or via their national authorities, to the European Commission. From 1 January 2021, Great Britain producers (but not Northern Ireland producers – see below) will be treated as a “third country” under the EU scheme, and will first need to secure protection for new GIs under the UK scheme before applying under the EU scheme. The criteria applied to determine registration of an application from a GB producer are otherwise the same as those which apply to products originating from the EU as outlined in the relevant EU regulations. Once registered, a GB GI under the EU scheme will benefit from the same level of protection as EU GIs.

Protection in Great Britain under the new UK scheme: From 1 January 2021, producers will need to apply for a new GI in Great Britain under the UK scheme.

According to the Withdrawal Agreement (and unless an alternate agreed position is reached regarding GIs), the EU regulations that govern the EU scheme will be directly retained in UK law (save for any amendments made by a statutory instrument to deal with deficiencies). Therefore, the criteria for obtaining protection under the UK scheme should in theory be the same as that required under the EU scheme, though in practice it is possible that the criteria could be applied differently.

Under Article 54 of the Withdrawal Agreement, where a GI ceases to be protected under the EU scheme after 1 January 2021, the UK is not obliged to continue to provide protection for the GI either.

According to the UK government guidance, DEFRA will publish further guidance relating to the application process.

On 22 October 2020, the UK government published a draft statutory instrument, Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (Draft), which amends deficiencies to the retained EU regulations which govern the scheme for geographical indications.

Protection in Northern Ireland (NI): For new applications for protection in Northern Ireland and the EU from 1 January 2021, an application will need to be made under the EU scheme. Northern Ireland producers will need to make a separate application under the UK scheme for protection in Great Britain. Unlike EU producers, Northern Ireland producers will not need to be protected first under the EU scheme before applying for protection under the UK scheme.

In addition, registered GIs in relation to products that can be produced anywhere on the island of Ireland (including Irish Whiskey, Irish Cream and Irish Poteen) will continue to be protected and protectable under both the EU and the new UK schemes.

New UK regime logos: There are logos for each of the three UK designations that can be downloaded and used from 1 January 2021. For food and agricultural GI products produced and for sale in Great Britain and registered from 1 January 2021, the relevant UK logo must appear on the packaging and marketing material from the date of registration. As for food and agricultural GI products produced and for sale in Great Britain and registered under the EU system before 1 January 2021, producers will have until 1 January 2024 to amend the packaging and marketing materials to display the relevant UK logos.

As is the case under the EU scheme, displaying the UK logos will be optional in relation to wine and spirit GIs.

For food and agricultural GI products of EU origin and of Northern Ireland origin (i.e. that are not produced in Great Britain), the use of the UK logos will be optional from 1 January 2021. In accordance with the draft statutory instrument as at the time of writing, EU and Northern Ireland producers that have food and agricultural GI products registered under the EU scheme, even if is also registered under the UK scheme, can continue to use the EU logos on their products for sale in Great Britain from 1 January 2021 and beyond 1 January 2024.

Continued use of EU logos: Food and agricultural GI products of EU origin must, under existing EU regulations, display the relevant EU logos. The same will continue to apply to food and agricultural GI products of Northern Ireland origin that are registered under the EU scheme.

As noted above, for food and agricultural GI products produced and for sale in Great Britain that were protected under the EU scheme before the end of the transition period, the EU logo may continue to be used until 1 January 2024, after which these producers will need to add the UK logos to the relevant packaging and marketing materials. Great Britain GI products that are protected in the EU can continue to use the EU logo on products sold in GB (but it will no longer be mandatory under the EU regulations) in addition to the mandatory UK logo.

International protection: In February 2020, the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement came into force. This treaty establishes the Lisbon System, an international registry for GIs through which registration can be obtained via a single application to WIPO. The EU acceded to the Geneva Act in November 2019, which enabled the Geneva Act to come into force.

The Geneva Act currently applies to the UK during the transition period. However, the UK will not be obliged in its own scheme to continue to protect geographical indications registered through the Lisbon System after the transition period ends (unless the UK ratifies the Geneva Act independently after the transition period). It seems unlikely that the UK will independently ratify the Geneva Act, as this issue is not addressed in the UK government guidance on geographical indications. Further, under Art 54(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement, where protection in the EU is derived from international agreements to which the EU is a party, the same level of protection does not need to be provided in the UK.

The UK government guidance on GIs does state that reciprocal international protection of UK GIs will continue after 1 January 2021, if protection is granted under an EU free trade agreement where the UK has signed a continuity agreement. The UK government guidance lists the Andean Community (being a free trade area comprising Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru), Chile and Switzerland as examples, and recent developments in the UK government negotiations mean that a level of protection will also continue in Japan and Korea.  Reciprocal international protection of UK GIs will also continue where protection is granted under other EU third country sectoral agreements (agreements that are not free trade agreements) where the UK has signed a continuity agreement.

It remains to be seen in the upcoming months whether the UK government’s international negotiations mean that reciprocal international protection of UK GIs will have the same jurisdictional coverage as the UK previously had in the EU. If continuity agreements to EU free trade agreements cannot be agreed before 1 January 2021, then the UK is likely to miss out on a level of reciprocity of protection for UK GIs going forward, unless and until alternate agreements can be made.


Joel Smith

Joel Smith
Partner, IP, London
+44 20 7466 2331

Julie Chiu

Julie Chiu
Senior Associate (Australia), London
+44 20 7466 2658

Rachel Montagnon

Rachel Montagnon
Professional Support Consultant, IP, London
+44 20 7466 2217


Glaxo’s purple inhalers fail to get trade mark protection

Like Cadbury before them, Glaxo’s hard-fought attempts to register a trade mark for a shade of purple have been rejected. In this case, Glaxo had sought to register the colour of its seretide inhalers and asthma treatments as a trade mark, by providing the description “Purple – Pantone: 2787C” and this sign:

The General Court of the European Union upheld earlier decisions by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and its Board of Appeal, commenting that it was not in the public interest for colours to be monopolised in this context, and found that the mark applied for lacked “inherent distinctive character” and that the evidence of acquired distinctiveness provided by Glaxo (in opinion surveys and comments of doctors and pharmacists on social media and website, as well as sales figures) was not sufficient to demonstrate that it had acquired distinctive character through use (Case T‑187/19). Continue reading

COVID-19: Pressure points: UK Government disables domain names and social media accounts involved in selling fake or unauthorised COVID-19 products

On Saturday (4 April 2020) the UK Government issued a press release on how the medicines and medical devices regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), is investigating the increasing number of bogus medical products being sold through unauthorised websites claiming to treat or prevent COVID-19 cases of fake or unlicensed COVID-19 medical products.

These concerns were reflected in our blog post of 2 April, COVID Counterfeits, which identified many of the problems facing business supply chains caused by the opportunities that unscrupulous parties see arising from the pandemic, and suggested ways to deal with them using intellectual property rights and advertising regulations inter alia.

The Government’s press release refers to “self-testing kits, ‘miracle cures’, ‘antiviral misting sprays’, and unlicensed medicines” as being amongst the products being promoted, and states very clearly:

At this time, there are currently no medicines licensed specifically for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 and there are no CE marked self-testing kits approved for home use“.

According to the press release, the MHRA has disabled 9 domain names and social media accounts selling fake or unauthorised COVID-19 products.

Lynda Scammell, MHRA Enforcement Official, is quoted as saying: “There is no medicine licensed specifically to treat or prevent COVID-19, therefore any claiming to do so are not authorised and have not undergone regulatory approvals required for sale on the UK market. We cannot guarantee the safety or quality of the product and this poses a risk to your health.”

Key Contacts and Authors

Joel Smith

Joel Smith
Partner, Head of Intellectual Property, London
+20 7466 2331

Jonathan Turnbull

Jonathan Turnbull
Partner, Intellectual Property & Pharma, London
+44 20 7466 2174

Rachel Montagnon

Rachel Montagnon
Professional Support Consultant, IP, London
+44 20 7466 2217


Herbert Smith Freehills’ IP Podcasts – Episode 4: Comparative Advertising

Advertising that makes a comparison with another party’s products or services needs to be considered carefully. In episode 4 of our IP podcast series, Joel Smith and Victoria Horsey provide a short summary of the laws which apply and review the options for challenging misleading and unlawful adverts in the UK.

Listen and subscribe here:

Joel Smith

Joel Smith
+44 20 7466 2331

Victoria Horsey

Victoria Horsey
Senior Associate
+44 20 7466 2217

Previous episodes in our Intellectual Property Podcast series…

Episode 1: An introduction to FRAND

The UK Supreme Court is soon expected to hand down its judgment in the appeals of Unwired Planet v Huawei and ZTE v Conversant, concerning FRAND, which were heard together. In advance of the decision itself, this podcast provides a reminder of what FRAND is all about (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms required in the licensing of standard essential patents) and what issues are before the Court, as well as some background to the individual disputes. Presented by David Webb and Rachel Montagnon.

Listen and subscribe here –

Episode 2: ‘Plausibility’ in patent law

Andrew Wells (one of the winners of the 2019 AIPPI prize for UK AIPPI Group’s study questions for his contribution on the plausibility question) and Rachel Montagnon discuss:

  • The concept of ‘plausibility’ in patent law
  • The EPO approach to inventive step and plausibility
  • How plausibility arises in insufficiency arguments
  • The approach of the English courts
  • The future for the concept of plausibility in patent law
  • Practical implications for innovators and patentees

Listen and subscribe here –

Episode 3: Architects’ copyright

Rachel Montagnon and Joanna Silver discuss the problems associated with the use of architects’ designs where specific permissions are not in place, and the impact on development projects, including:

  • What sort of works attract copyright?
  • How could these copyright works be infringed?
  • Who owns copyright in architects’ designs?
  • What licences can be implied if no agreement is in place?
  • Termination of engagement and insolvency situations
  • Escrow and collateral warranties
  • Moral rights
  • What relief can architects claim?

Listen and subscribe here:

Deepfakes: is seeing still believing?

The BBC thriller The Capture has captured the public’s imagination with its portrayal of the relationship between deepfakes and CCTV evidence, and the serious legal risks associated with this technology.

In a recent report published by non-profit research institute Data & Society, deepfakes were found to be “no new threat to democracy”, in that audiovisual media has always been manipulated, for a variety of purposes. What is new is the convincingness of deepfakes; the challenges associated with detecting them; and the risks associated with sharing deepfakes at speed and at scale on social media.

In this post we discuss the issues arising from such fakery and the possible legal counters.

What are deepfakes?

Put simply, deepfakes are fake videos created by artificially intelligent systems, predominantly trained using machine learning methods in order to generate or manipulate human bodies, faces and voices.

In the Data & Society report, deepfakes are distinguished from ‘cheap fakes’: fake videos made using package software or no software at all. Cheap fake techniques may include adjusting the timing of footage, deleting or cutting frames together, re-dubbing sound, or simply re-contextualising footage by changing narration, captions or video titles.

Once confined to academic research groups and Hollywood studios, deepfake technology is now accessible to anyone with enough computational resource to manipulate it. Consumer grade animation software can be used in conjunction with open source programs available on public repositories like GitHub to produce fakes of a similar quality to those created for legitimate purposes by computer scientists.

The first widely-known examples of amateur deepfakes appeared in November 2017, when a Reddit user called “deepfakes” uploaded a number of fake videos depicting celebrities’ faces grafted onto pornography.

Fake history

It is important to remember that audiovisual fakery is nothing new. Since the beginning of motion pictures, efforts have been made to create visual and audio effects using methods other than filming or recording them. Historically, these effects were achieved by manually altering existing footage in the cutting room, or later, in special effects departments. More recently, computer-generated imagery has advanced to a point where fakes in the film industry are now not only remarkably convincing, but commonplace – such as the recreated version of the late Carrie Fisher in recent Star Wars movies.

However, what is new is the potential for deepfake technology to help audiovisual fakery cross the line from expressive content to informative content.

Fake news

Fewer people now consume news via traditional methods such as reading newspapers, instead favouring audiovisual media such as 24/7 news channels or news apps on smartphones. In today’s digital age, news is no longer the exclusive remit of mainstream media coverage; many of us today also consume news via alternative resources, such as Twitter, reddit and other social media platforms.

This means that the phenomenon of fake news is not confined to text media alone, and whilst news articles written or published by unreliable sources are easily discredited, video content is much harder to argue with. Consequently, deepfake technology provides an opportunity for malicious actors to try to pass off fiction as fact. Technology now exists which makes it possible to synthesize entirely fake audiovisual performances by almost anyone, providing the “ability to put words and actions in the mouths and bodies of others”. For example, there have been several high-profile examples of deepfake videos featuring Barack Obama, such as the fake speech video created by researchers at Stanford University, and the “public service announcement” video warning against the dangers of deepfakes, created by BuzzFeed and American actor and comedian Jordan Peele.

However, it is not only public figures who are at risk of their images being faked. It only requires a few hundred images of training data to produce a reasonable quality deepfake, and in today’s digital age, there are plenty of images of most people publically available on their social media profiles. As such, it is relatively easy for any one of us to be “faked”.

It is important to note that fake news is a concern for cheap fakes and deepfakes alike – given the speed and scale at which information is transmitted via social media platforms, content can go viral before moderators, fact checkers, journalists and mainstream media are able to identify that content as being faked. The problem with deepfakes, though, is how much harder they are to detect, even with modern deepfake detection algorithms, which are not yet widely available.

This creates a risk that an unsuspecting journalist or unscrupulous mainstream media outlet may pick up a deepfake news story and perpetuate it via legitimate sources, thereby ‘validating’ the fake content as real news, with potentially harmful consequences.

Fake evidence

The possible implications of deepfakes on the reliability and admissibility of CCTV evidence in court were explored to devastating effect in The Capture: if seeing is no longer believing, do deepfakes change evidence as we know it?

Historically, courts have always struggled with new forms of evidence. For example, expert witnesses were required to justify the admissibility of photographic evidence to 19th century courts, despite its relative reliability as evidence compared with written witness statements and oral testimony.

That is not to say that audiovisual evidence is the same as ‘truth’ – such evidence can, and has, been manipulated in past trials, such as in the famous Rodney King case in the US, in which video evidence of a violent arrest was deliberately slowed in such a way as to undermine allegations of police brutality. The jury said that the slow video had “made all the difference”, and the police officers were acquitted. Consider the potential effects, then, of video ‘evidence’ which is not only manipulated, but which has been entirely fabricated by deepfake software, placing people at crime scenes or even depicting them committing crimes.

With not only CCTV, but photographs, dashcams, amateur footage, and the results of facial recognition software, all playing a potential role in court cases, there will be serious political, security and criminal implications if audiovisual evidence can no longer be trusted as proof.

Technical and legal counters

Whilst a limited amount of legislation dedicated to deepfakes exists in some jurisdictions (for example, Californian legislation which places restrictions on deepfakes depicting politicians within 60 days of an election), there is no UK legislation specifically designed to address deepfakes.

Existing causes of action which could be relevant include:

  • Copyright and social media takedown requests

Currently, social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, and website hosting companies, benefit from the ‘safe harbour’ principle under US and EU law, meaning that the platforms themselves can’t be held responsible for user content which infringes copyright so long as they have a process for notification and takedown of such content (most providers’ processes are governed by the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, even if they are not US-based). Content creators can submit evidence of copyright infringement to the platforms (usually via standard-web based forms available on the platforms), and the platforms are then responsible for removing the infringing content.

This mechanism was recently used to remove a Kim Kardashian deepfake from YouTube, and thus offers photographers and filmmakers a relatively straightforward method of removing deepfakes which use their copyrighted work. Additionally, blocking injunctions may be available against internet service providers (ISPs) to tackle repeated and concerted attempts to post infringing content on websites.

However, use of copyright material is permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in a considerable number of circumstances, including for purposes of reporting current events, caricature, parody or pastiche, meaning satirical deepfakes may be exempt from copyright claims. In addition, if only a part of the copyrighted work is used, there could be claims that the deepfake would be exempt under the ‘quotation’/extract provisions.

  • Image rights

Whilst celebrities enjoy the benefit of ‘image rights’ in some jurisdictions, which protect them from misuse of their likeness, these rights do not exist in the UK, so individuals whose images are used in deepfakes must seek other means of redress (often using passing off via false endorsement, as in the Rihanna v Topshop case [2013]). Depending on the context of the deepfake (e.g. if the deepfake is used in a commercial context), options may include bringing a claim under passing off/false endorsement or perhaps trade mark infringement if appropriate images are registered as trade marks.

  • Data privacy

Individuals’ images constitute personal data under Art 4(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’). As such, victims of deepfakes may also be able to enforce their data protection rights against the data controller, including the right to rectification (Art 16) and the right to erasure (Art 17). However, identifying the ‘data controller’ (or controllers) in the context of a deepfake video shared online via multiple platforms is unlikely to be a straightforward process.

  • Defamation, harassment and misuse of private information

These offer alternative causes of action in circumstances where the deepfake: would harm an individual’s reputation, amounts to harassment, or is pornographic (which would amount to private information, even though the information is false (McKennit v Ash [2006]).

Proposed measures to counter the “fakes” problem:

The shortcomings associated with existing options set out above are compounded by the fact that, even if the victim is able to make out a case, under one or more of these grounds, they may face difficulty in actually bringing their claim if, for example, the creator of the deepfake cannot be identified, or if there are jurisdictional obstacles.

Consequently, there are widespread calls for further legal and te counters to deepfakes. Potential counters being considered include:

  • Legislation requiring the identification or registration of content creators
  • Legislation forcing individuals to label manipulated content and fine those whose manipulative content is deemed harmful.
  • An improved regulatory and legislative framework around potential rights of action for victims, such as establishing image rights in the UK.
  • Adding invisible ‘noise’ to digital images which deepfake algorithms struggle to process, impacting the quality of the resulting deepfake content.
  • Tracking the provenance of content through use of distributed verification technology (such as Truepic, which uses blockchain technology to verify the authenticity of content).
  • Removing net neutrality for all packets carrying video data, in order to trace them to their real-life creators.
  • Embedding automated fake detection software on social media platforms, search engines and internet browsers.
  • Employing more content moderators and reconsidering platforms’ liability for their role in spreading fake content.
  • Raising awareness of fake audiovisual content and encouraging the public to interrogate their sources.


Whilst audiovisual manipulation is nothing new, whether in the context of news media or evidence in court, the advent of deepfake technology makes fake content much harder to identify. In a world where seeing is not necessarily believing, and where audiovisual footage is shared at speed and at scale on social media and other platforms, the risks associated with deepfakes and cheap fakes alike are becoming increasingly important to address.

Joel Smith

Joel Smith
Partner, Head of Intellectual Property UK, London
+44 20 7466 2331

Laura Adde

Laura Adde
Associate, London
+44 20 7466 7491

Rachel Montagnon

Rachel Montagnon
Professional Support Consultant, London
+44 20 7466 2217


AG’s Opinion in SkyKick maintains the case’s chilling effect on enforcement of trade mark rights, pending clarity from the CJEU

The CJEU’s Advocate-General (‘AG’) has delivered his Opinion that a registered trade mark cannot be declared invalid solely due to the terms used in the mark’s specification lacking ‘sufficient’ clarity and precision. However, this statement came with the substantial caveat that a lack of clarity and precision in the specification could cause the application/registration to fall within the ‘contrary to public policy’ provision, which is a ground for refusal or invalidity of EU and national trade marks. The Opinion also considered ‘intention to use’ and concluded that applying for registration of a trade mark with no intention to use it in connection with specified goods or services, could constitute an element of bad faith (bad faith itself a ground for refusal of registration & invalidity).  The AG’s Opinion follows a reference to the CJEU in the case Sky v SkyKick from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (‘the Court’).

Continue reading

Data Assets – Protecting and Driving Value in a Digital Age

Faced with the exponential rise of data as an asset class in its own right, organisations are now taking a fresh look at the data that are available or accessible to them and the ways in which the value of those data can be safeguarded, unlocked and maximised. Data have become a strategic and valuable asset for many organisations but protecting and exploiting that asset is not always simple.

Our feature article, published in May’s edition of PLC Magazine and linked in this post, considers data as an asset, how intellectual property rights can be employed to protect data, how data can be used effectively and how to minimise associated legal risks.

The article explores key legal considerations for organisations looking to develop or refine a data commercialisation strategy, including in respect of:

  • the concept of so-called data “ownership”;
  • intellectual property rights;
  • contractual rights;
  • information governance;
  • competition law; and
  • corporate transactions.

For the full article please click below:


This article was first published in PLC Magazine, May 2019

Edward Du Boulay

Edward Du Boulay
Senior Associate, Digital TMT & Data, London
+44 20 7466 2384

Miriam Everett

Miriam Everett
Partner, Head of Data Protection & Privacy, London
+44 20 7466 2378

Kyriakos Fountoukakos

Kyriakos Fountoukakos
Partner, Competition and Trade, Brussels
+32 2 518 1840

Andrew Moir

Andrew Moir
Partner, Head of Cybersecurity, London
+44 20 7466 2773

Rachel Montagnon

Rachel Montagnon
Professional Support Consultant, Intellectual Property, London
+44 20 7466 2217

Joel Smith

Joel Smith
Partner, Head of Intellectual Property, London
+44 20 7466 2331

Manish Soni

Manish Soni
Senior Associate, London
+44 20 7466 2016

Misleading brand name ‘Glen Buchenbach’ infringes the registered geographical indication ‘Scotch Whisky’

In a decision that extends the law of geographical indications into the territory of the UK tort of passing off, the District Court of Hamburg (the ‘Court’) has prohibited the use of ‘Glen’ in the name of a whisky that did not originate from Scotland on the basis of the geographical indication protection associated with ‘Scotch Whisky’ . Continue reading

Herbert Smith Freehills’ global Trade Marks Practice lauded a ‘formidable force’ in WTR 1000 rankings

Herbert Smith Freehills has been lauded a ‘class act’, after it was ranked highly in the 2019 edition of World Trademark Review (WTR) 1000.

Now in its ninth year, the WTR 1000 highlights firms and individuals that are deemed outstanding in this area of practice.

Herbert Smith Freehills has been showcased in the research directory as being ‘a formidable force within the trademark sphere’ and a ‘prestigious commercial outfit’, after it was highlighted for having particularly strong trademark experience globally in WTR 1000. The firm’s practices in the UK, Australia, France and Italy were all highly ranked in the directory.

The publication singles out the firm for being “packed to the rafters with world-class talent that consistently exceeds the expectations of clients”.

WTR cites the “hands-on leadership”  of Joel Smith, UK Head of IP as crucial to the side’s recent growth and success and goes on to highlight Joel as “a brilliant strategic thinker” flagging his work for major brands alongside much-praised Paris Partner Alexandra Neri on cross-border trade mark disputes.

Global Head of IP Mark Shillito is lauded as an “exquisite complex problem solver and litigator” and Laura Orlando has also been showcased, after she helped set up our growing Milan office in late 2017. She is flagged for her, “super pragmatic and business oriented” approach, which makes her one of the “best IP lawyers in Italy”.

Celia Davies, who heads Herbert Smith Freehills’ Trademarks prosecution group in Australia, is “a true leader in the trademark market”. Melbourne Partner Shaun McVicar has also been held up as possessing a “commercial and strategic outlook on litigation” which means that brands are in “good hands when he is on a case.” Partner Sue Gilchrist is also singled out as being a “top-flight litigator” and Kristin Stammer as an “eminent adviser with terrific technical trademark knowledge”.

In its write-up of the firm’s trade mark practice, WTR comments, “Herbert Smith Freehills isn’t about being the biggest in trademarks; it focuses, instead, on quality and adding strategic value for blue-chip international rights holders – and routinely surpasses expectations in both regards.”

As with previous editions, to arrive at the 2019 rankings, WTR undertook an exhaustive qualitative research project to identify the firms and individuals that are deemed outstanding in this critical area of practice. The publication says that when identifying the leading firms, factors such as depth of expertise, market presence and the level of work on which they are typically instructed were all taken into account, alongside positive peer and client feedback.

To view the full write-up, please visit:

Cadbury’s colour purple trade mark can’t be split

Clarity and precision in a trade mark description are the winners in the Court of Appeal

Cadbury’s attempt to argue its trade mark registration for the colour purple was actually a series mark which could be split and partially maintained was rejected yesterday by the Court of Appeal. Although another blow in Cadbury’s multi-decade, hard-fought attempt to trade mark the colour purple for chocolate bars in the UK, the decision helps to maintain clarity and certainty on the trade marks register.

Key take away: If you are applying for a trade mark, then it is important that the monopoly you are claiming is clear and precise – especially if your mark is ‘unusual’, such as a colour or shape mark. To be successful, the trade mark application should not be able to be interpreted in multiple different ways.

Cadbury v Comptroller of Patents [2018] EWCA Civ 2715 (5 December 2018)

Continue reading