The WIPR – World IP Review UK Trademark Rankings 2026 have been published and Powell Gilbert are Recommended again for Contentious Trademark matters. Congratulations to Simon Ayrton and Alex Wilson who also receive individual recognition.
Find out more about PG’s trademark expertise: here.
PG partners Alex Wilson and Dr Andreas Kramer have been featured in Managing IP, discussing what differentiates Powell Gilbert’s approach to Unified Patent Court (UPC) litigation and why the firm’s integrated model gives it a competitive edge.
In the interview, Alex and Andreas explain why Powell Gilbert has never viewed the UPC as a single, uniform jurisdiction, but rather as a ‘mosaic’ that brings together judges, procedures and legal traditions from across Europe. They discuss how the firm’s long-standing experience coordinating complex pan-European litigation, combined with its integrated London, Dublin and Düsseldorf teams and trusted network of local counsel, enables it to build the right team for each client’s dispute.
They also reflect on the firm’s continued growth before the UPC and the importance Powell Gilbert’s fully integrated teams in delivering successful outcomes for clients.
Read the full article below and on the Managing IP website here.
Brussels Commentary on European Law – Unified Patent Court Procedure
UPC Agreement – Rules of Procedure Statute
Augenstein / Agé / Wilson
This week, we’re proud to be celebrating the launch of a new, definitive international guide to Unified Patent Court Procedure, co-edited by Powell Gilbert co-founding partner Alex Wilson and featuring chapters authored by five other PG lawyers and UPC Representatives.
Unified Patent Court Procedure: A Commentary explores and contextualises the origins of the provisions of the UPC Agreement and Rules of Procedure of the UPC, bringing perspectives from leading authors across key European patent jurisdictions including, France, Germany, Netherlands, UK and the Nordics.
Alongside up-to-date analysis of recent UPC case law, the commentary provides essential background on the development and rationale of the provisions, enriched with comparative perspectives from national law – an invaluable resource for practitioners and judges alike.
Also featuring contributions from Powell Gilbert’s Pete Damerell, Peter FitzPatrick, Tess Waldron, Tim Whitfield and William Hillson. Thanks also to Fraser Simpson and Maciej Padamczyk for their important contributions.
– Customers from the UK, U.S., and Canada can order their copy here.
– All other customers can order their copy here.
Alex Borthwick and Douglas Jayatilaka take a detailed look at the Sky v SkyKick judgment handed down by the UK Supreme Court in November 2024, and offer some practical guidance in light of the decision – please see article here [PDF] or via the publication online link here.
(This article was published in journal MarkenR 1-2/2025, Carl Heymanns Verlag, citation: MarkenR 2025, 4)
25 Years of Modern Genomics
In December 1999, researchers from the Human Genome Project announced the complete sequencing of human chromosome 22. This marked the first time that scientists had successfully sequenced the DNA within an entire human chromosome, and marked the first concrete step in modern day genomics.
The past 25 years have seen a rapid increase in the capabilities of genomic technologies – what once took years can now be carried out in a lab in just a few hours. DNA sequencing, and the advent of modern genomics, has had a tangible impact on the world around us – from developing precision medicines, to combatting global pandemics. This rate of innovation will continue to increase, but with new and exciting opportunities comes a host of informational, technological and legal challenges.
What is ‘genomics’ and how is it used today?
Genomics is the study of an organism’s complete set of DNA – its genome. Unlike genetics, which focuses on individual genes, genomics analyses the entirety of the genetic material, providing a broader view of how genes interact with each other and influence biological processes.
Rapid advances in genomic technologies, such as high throughput sequencing methods and machine learning powered association studies, have allowed healthcare innovators to develop precision medicines tailored to an individual’s genome, or even screen a person’s risk of developing certain diseases based on their genetic profile so that preventative treatments can be recommended.
At a global level, a genomics-led strategy played a key role in combatting the Covid-19 pandemic so that researchers rapidly sequenced viral genomes, identifying the emergence of new variants and permitting the development of vaccines. At the consumer level, for example, genomic testing services are being made available to reveal an individual’s ancestry with direct-to-consumer genomic testing kits.
What does the next 25 years have in store?
Genomic Medicines
In November 2023, the UK became the first country to approve a therapy based on the revolutionary CRISPR gene-editing technology. The treatment, named Casgevy, is a potential cure for two genetic blood disorders: sickle cell disease and beta thalassaemia. It works by first removing stem cells from the patient’s bone marrow, using a CRISPR tool to cleave the DNA at a specific site which disables the faulty gene, then reinfusing the edited cells back into the patient thus allowing the body to produce functioning haemoglobin. This is a major therapeutic breakthrough, and while the costs are high (almost $1m per dose), there’s no doubt that further genomic medicines, including to treat more complex, polygenic disorders, are on the horizon.
Beyond Pharma
While the healthcare industry has undoubtedly been the home to the highest number of genomics innovations in the past quarter century, the potential applications extend well beyond the pharmaceutical world.
Advances in our ability to accurately predict physiological traits and behaviours from genomic information, facilitated by contemporaneous breakthroughs in AI and machine learning technologies, could potentially lead to ‘polygenic risk scores’ being more widely used in future, for example by the insurance industry or even in decision making for employment, education or the criminal justice system. At the moment, public opinion is split on whether this would be an acceptable use of genomic information or whether it would lead to ‘genetic discrimination’.
What risks will genomics innovators have to grapple with?
Data privacy
The human genome consists of over 3 billion base pairs of DNA. Within an individual’s genetic code could be highly sensitive information, for example indications of predisposition to certain diseases. Innovators carrying out genomic studies have consequently become the custodians of huge amounts of private genetic data. That data does not just belong to the individual, but contains information about their immediate relatives too. Encryption and anonymisation may help to safeguard this data, but with cybersecurity breaches on the rise, genomic information may become a target for bad actors seeking to steal or misuse private information. This risk has already started to manifest itself, with direct-to-consumer genomics provider 23andMe suffering a severe data breach last year which exposed the DNA data of 7 million users. While the current UK Government’s plans to create a ‘single access point’ for researchers to access the genomic data from all UK genomic databanks is an important step in facilitating effective nationwide innovation, it could concentrate this cybersecurity risk to one point of exploit.
Patentability
Protecting the intellectual property in genomics technologies is another key concern for innovators. Patent applications for genomics technologies have been on a steady incline since the mid-2010s, with the USA and the UK being two of the hottest jurisdictions for patentees. While naturally occurring genetic information cannot itself be patented, in Europe the Biotechnology Directive confirmed that DNA which has been removed from the body or produced by a technical process (isolated DNA) with a known function is patentable. Further, the sequencing methods, tools, and even algorithms used to interpret and apply genomic information can also be patentable inventions. Patents in the genomics field are often the subject of European Patent Office Oppositions and litigation in the national courts and more litigation can be expected as new innovations are made and technologies evolve further. As AI and machine learning become further integrated in the field of genomics, for example in drug discovery studies and genome wide association studies, it is conceivable that the patent law framework may need to be adapted to keep up with the raft of technological advances and ensure it continues to represent a fair bargain both for patentees and for the general public.
An inflection point?
It is no doubt that the field of genomics is still relatively nascent in its technological lifecycle. While it’s clear that huge breakthroughs in science and our understanding of the genome have been and continue to be made, the true potential of genomics is perhaps yet to be unleashed. If we were to draw parallels to technologies such as the Web, it seems plausible that an inflection point may soon be reached triggering widespread societal application in ways simply unpredictable and unfathomable to us right now. Innovators at the cutting-edge of the field will have to be sufficiently equipped to deal with the challenges, legal or otherwise, that this new age will bring.
Written by Abraham Darby-Zaier, Associate at Powell Gilbert LLP.
This blog article represents the opinions of the author individually, and does not constitute legal advice or the opinion of Powell Gilbert LLP as a firm.
The beginning of June marked the one-year anniversary of the launch of the Unified Patent Court, establishing for the first time a single patent jurisdiction for a major proportion of the European market encompassing c.300 million people.
To mark the anniversary, PG Partner Alex Wilson spoke to the Financial Times to give his assessment of the successes of the court over the past twelve months and what the benefits are to date for European patentholders.
In its first year, a total of 373 cases were filed with the UPC across a range of technologies and industries. In Alex’s words: “In pure numbers, the court has been a runaway success.”
PG is proud to have acted in 33 of those cases, representing approximately 10% of total cases, across all the major regional and central divisions of the court and the Court of Appeal, including arguing major procedural issues for the new court such as transparency and access to documents.
You can read Alex thoughts in an article by the FT’s Legal Correspondent Suzi Ring published in a Special Report on Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms, here.
Find out more about our patent litigation work before the UPC here: https://powellgilbert.com/what-we-do/patent-litigation-upc/.
Nuclear fusion is the reaction that powers the stars. As countries across the globe invest in R&D for nuclear fusion reactors, will it power a sustainable future on earth too?
In an article for ESG Investor, Doug Jayatilaka and Tom Oliver explore the role of IP in the research and development of nuclear fusion, which promises to be a safer and more sustainable alternative to nuclear fission.
They examine recent breakthroughs in the technology, the prospects for international co-operation on nuclear fusion, and how patents can help unlock private sector innovation. Available to read online here.
Elon Musk recently hit news headlines by announcing that he is rebranding Twitter as X. The iconic blue bird logo has already been replaced by an ‘interim’ X logo, and X.com now redirects to Twitter.com. Ironically, Musk announced the impending rebrand via a series of tweets.
For any technophobes out there, Twitter is a social media behemoth that was created and launched back in 2006. Since then, it has amassed hundreds of millions of monthly active users and has built up a globally recognised brand. Elon Musk acquired Twitter for a fee of approximately US $44 billion on October 27 2022, and has since implemented a number of changes to the platform which have faced criticism.
The decision to rebrand will not have been made lightly, and would likely have been contemplated by Musk and his executives prior to the acquisition. However, the apparent abandonment of established goodwill and recognition in the Twitter brand is likely to have raised eyebrows for marketing strategists and IP lawyers alike.
Rebranding is a powerful tool which can modernise and reinvigorate a business, which is usually completed as part of a marketing strategy to re focus a brand to its target market. It may be done to develop new, or to solidify existing, customer bases, to demonstrate commitment to a particular culture, or to provide a fresh business image.
A rebrand can be highly effective in adapting an existing franchise to the modern world (as in the case of the Washington Commanders American football team, formerly known as the Washington Redskins).
It can also be effective in distancing from negative publicity. The jewellery company Ratners Group received heavy criticism and negative media attention following its CEO’s infamous 1991 Institute of Directors speech, in which he referred to one of their products as “total crap”. Ratners Group lost hundreds of millions of pounds, closed hundreds of stores and was forced to undergo financial restructuring. They were able to change their image through a rebrand to ‘Signet Group’, and later ‘Signet Jewellers Ltd.’, which bounced back and is currently the world’s largest retailer of diamond jewellery with an estimated annual revenue in excess of £6 billion.
It is clear Twitter’s rebrand to X is part of a wider strategy to expand into different technologies, markets and customer bases. It allows X to establish a new identity, but it is important to note that replacing a very well established brand can give rise to two major difficulties.
First, there is a risk of confusing or even alienating existing customers.
In some cases, consumers may be confused as to the relationship between the original and new brands. For example, Tropicana’s rebrand of its orange juice drink back in 2009 to a simpler packaging design with a new logo caused consumers to fail to recognise the product, with many mistaking it for a cheaper generic – Tropicana eventually had to revert to their original design.
In other cases, consumers may be dissatisfied with, or even alienated by, a rebrand. Leaping before looking can lead to unintended consequences, such as when the Sci-Fi television channel decided to change its logo to ‘Syfy’, apparently unaware that this is a term used to describe something that is disgusting (often in a sexual context) in a number of countries, including Poland.
As for Twitter, a number of trade marks are registered in the UK to Twitter Inc., such as ‘TWEET’, ‘TWITTER’ and the well-known blue bird logo (as listed on the UKIPO website). Users are well-acquainted with these elements of the brand, so it would be very surprising to see these elements completely jettisoned. Does one still ‘tweet’ through X, or does one perhaps have an ‘Xchange’?
Therefore, before buying the paint tins for that new colour scheme, a detailed analysis of why people choose to use one’s business should be undertaken to reduce the risk of potentially alienating existing customers who still connect with the original branding.
Second, a rebrand may have significant repercussions in respect of intellectual property rights.
An existing brand may be protected by a number of different, potentially overlapping, intellectual property rights, such as copyright, trade marks and passing off rights. Such rights may no longer protect the new brand. It is imperative that the appropriate checks are carried out and preparations made before amending one’s website domain name, logo, colour scheme or business name. Where the rebranding is extensive, the intellectual property rights of a previous brand may not carry over to the rebranded intellectual property. In the case of registered rights, further registrations in all relevant jurisdictions may be required.
For instance, as noted above, Twitter Inc. owns a range of trade marks covering its business, but many of these trade marks do not apply to the rebrand. Ideally, such registrations should be obtained before the rebrand has been publicised, in order to reduce the scope for opportunistic registrations. This issue was faced by Citigroup in the early 2000s. Following a high-profile announcement of the agreement to form Citigroup, domain name registrations for citigroup.co.uk and citigroup.com were strategically filed by a one-man company called Global Projects Management. In his 2005 judgment, Mr Justice Park held that this amounted to passing off, but by which time Citigroup had suffered both legal and financial damage as a result of not obtaining the domain names beforehand.
X may face issues in registering trade marks in respect of key parts of its new brand, such as its name and logo. Previous decisions as to the registrability of single-letter trade marks suggest that it may be more difficult to establish their distinctiveness (as noted in the 2010 refusal of an EU trade mark of the Greek letter alpha, ‘α’ – C 265/09 P). X may be able to register its name at a later stage if it can demonstrate that X has acquired distinctiveness through use. That said, the scope of protection conferred by single-letter trade marks may be low, as per the 2022 decision of the EU General Court in the K K Water case.
Aside from protection of its own brand, X will no doubt be mindful of other parties who already own registered marks and passing off/unfair competition rights in respect of the letter ‘X’. There had been speculation that the new logo for X uses Monotype’s “Special Alphabets 4” font for the letter X. However, this was refuted by Monotype’s Executive Creative Director. Regardless, its similarity may invite a legal challenge from Monotype, or from owners of registered trade marks involving the letter X. The EUIPO’s TMview search tool shows hundreds of ‘X’ marks, registered across dozens of national offices, which notably includes such marks registered and used by Microsoft (e.g. the Xbox and Excel logos).
Further, non-use of current marks like the blue bird logo would also likely lead to revocation actions. Whilst in the UK and EU this requires non-use for a period of 5 or more years, in the US it is only 3 years. If revoked, the use of ‘Twitter’, ‘tweet’, and the well-known blue bird would be up for grabs.
It remains to be seen how Musk’s rebrand from Twitter to X develops. As with many of the steps taken by the world’s richest man, this is not without controversy.
Powell Gilbert has also recently rebranded, to give the firm a fresh, modern look after recently celebrating its 16th anniversary – check out our new website at powellgilbert.com and get in touch with your thoughts!
Douglas Jayatilaka, Associate, Powell Gilbert
Elon Musk recently hit news headlines by announcing that he is rebranding Twitter as X. The iconic blue bird logo has already been replaced by an ‘interim’ X logo, and X.com now redirects to Twitter.com. Ironically, Musk announced the impending rebrand via a series of tweets.
For any technophobes out there, Twitter is a social media behemoth that was created and launched back in 2006. Since then, it has amassed hundreds of millions of monthly active users and has built up a globally recognised brand. Elon Musk acquired Twitter for a fee of approximately US $44 billion on October 27 2022, and has since implemented a number of changes to the platform which have faced criticism.
The decision to rebrand will not have been made lightly, and would likely have been contemplated by Musk and his executives prior to the acquisition. However, the apparent abandonment of established goodwill and recognition in the Twitter brand is likely to have raised eyebrows for marketing strategists and IP lawyers alike.
Rebranding is a powerful tool which can modernise and reinvigorate a business, which is usually completed as part of a marketing strategy to re focus a brand to its target market. It may be done to develop new, or to solidify existing, customer bases, to demonstrate commitment to a particular culture, or to provide a fresh business image.
A rebrand can be highly effective in adapting an existing franchise to the modern world (as in the case of the Washington Commanders American football team, formerly known as the Washington Redskins).
It can also be effective in distancing from negative publicity. The jewellery company Ratners Group received heavy criticism and negative media attention following its CEO’s infamous 1991 Institute of Directors speech, in which he referred to one of their products as “total crap”. Ratners Group lost hundreds of millions of pounds, closed hundreds of stores and was forced to undergo financial restructuring. They were able to change their image through a rebrand to ‘Signet Group’, and later ‘Signet Jewellers Ltd.’, which bounced back and is currently the world’s largest retailer of diamond jewellery with an estimated annual revenue in excess of £6 billion.
It is clear Twitter’s rebrand to X is part of a wider strategy to expand into different technologies, markets and customer bases. It allows X to establish a new identity, but it is important to note that replacing a very well established brand can give rise to two major difficulties.
First, there is a risk of confusing or even alienating existing customers.
In some cases, consumers may be confused as to the relationship between the original and new brands. For example, Tropicana’s rebrand of its orange juice drink back in 2009 to a simpler packaging design with a new logo caused consumers to fail to recognise the product, with many mistaking it for a cheaper generic – Tropicana eventually had to revert to their original design.
In other cases, consumers may be dissatisfied with, or even alienated by, a rebrand. Leaping before looking can lead to unintended consequences, such as when the Sci-Fi television channel decided to change its logo to ‘Syfy’, apparently unaware that this is a term used to describe something that is disgusting (often in a sexual context) in a number of countries, including Poland.
As for Twitter, a number of trade marks are registered in the UK to Twitter Inc., such as ‘TWEET’, ‘TWITTER’ and the well-known blue bird logo (as listed on the UKIPO website). Users are well-acquainted with these elements of the brand, so it would be very surprising to see these elements completely jettisoned. Does one still ‘tweet’ through X, or does one perhaps have an ‘Xchange’?
Therefore, before buying the paint tins for that new colour scheme, a detailed analysis of why people choose to use one’s business should be undertaken to reduce the risk of potentially alienating existing customers who still connect with the original branding.
Second, a rebrand may have significant repercussions in respect of intellectual property rights.
An existing brand may be protected by a number of different, potentially overlapping, intellectual property rights, such as copyright, trade marks and passing off rights. Such rights may no longer protect the new brand. It is imperative that the appropriate checks are carried out and preparations made before amending one’s website domain name, logo, colour scheme or business name. Where the rebranding is extensive, the intellectual property rights of a previous brand may not carry over to the rebranded intellectual property. In the case of registered rights, further registrations in all relevant jurisdictions may be required.
For instance, as noted above, Twitter Inc. owns a range of trade marks covering its business, but many of these trade marks do not apply to the rebrand. Ideally, such registrations should be obtained before the rebrand has been publicised, in order to reduce the scope for opportunistic registrations. This issue was faced by Citigroup in the early 2000s. Following a high-profile announcement of the agreement to form Citigroup, domain name registrations for citigroup.co.uk and citigroup.com were strategically filed by a one-man company called Global Projects Management. In his 2005 judgment, Mr Justice Park held that this amounted to passing off, but by which time Citigroup had suffered both legal and financial damage as a result of not obtaining the domain names beforehand.
X may face issues in registering trade marks in respect of key parts of its new brand, such as its name and logo. Previous decisions as to the registrability of single-letter trade marks suggest that it may be more difficult to establish their distinctiveness (as noted in the 2010 refusal of an EU trade mark of the Greek letter alpha, ‘α’ – C 265/09 P). X may be able to register its name at a later stage if it can demonstrate that X has acquired distinctiveness through use. That said, the scope of protection conferred by single-letter trade marks may be low, as per the 2022 decision of the EU General Court in the K K Water case.
Aside from protection of its own brand, X will no doubt be mindful of other parties who already own registered marks and passing off/unfair competition rights in respect of the letter ‘X’. There had been speculation that the new logo for X uses Monotype’s “Special Alphabets 4” font for the letter X. However, this was refuted by Monotype’s Executive Creative Director. Regardless, its similarity may invite a legal challenge from Monotype, or from owners of registered trade marks involving the letter X. The EUIPO’s TMview search tool shows hundreds of ‘X’ marks, registered across dozens of national offices, which notably includes such marks registered and used by Microsoft (e.g. the Xbox and Excel logos).
Further, non-use of current marks like the blue bird logo would also likely lead to revocation actions. Whilst in the UK and EU this requires non-use for a period of 5 or more years, in the US it is only 3 years. If revoked, the use of ‘Twitter’, ‘tweet’, and the well-known blue bird would be up for grabs.
It remains to be seen how Musk’s rebrand from Twitter to X develops. As with many of the steps taken by the world’s richest man, this is not without controversy.
Powell Gilbert has also recently rebranded, to give the firm a fresh, modern look after recently celebrating its 16th anniversary – check out our new website at powellgilbert.com and get in touch with your thoughts!
Douglas Jayatilaka, Associate, Powell Gilbert
As the long-awaited Unified Patent Court finally opens its doors, it is easy to overlook developments in less prominent IP rights which may prove to be highly significant for specific industries. Although seldom the subject of litigation, Plant Variety Rights (PVRs) provide protection for, and promote investment in the research and development of, new varieties of plants. This is of critical importance for human wellbeing as well as numerous economically vital industries. Importantly, unlike the patent system, PVRs explicitly allow for third parties to use protected varieties as a starting point for their own breeding of new varieties, a concept that is broader and more flexible than the analogous “research exemptions” to patent infringement.
For many years, PVR registration in the UK had been administered by the EU’s Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), which provides a unitary PVR registration procedure for all EU Member States. However, as a consequence of Brexit, responsibility for maintaining the register of PVRs in the UK has now passed to the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the UK Animal and Plant Health Agency. Under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and EU, existing Community PVRs (CPVRs) in force in the UK have been converted into corresponding national UK “Retained EU plant variety rights” (Retained CPVRs or rCPVRs). However, this process is not entirely automatic – owners of these derived national UK rights must now register an address for service (and designated agent) within the UK by 1 January 2024, otherwise there is a risk that their PVR may be removed from the UK national register.
Although this re-registration process is essentially a formality for PVR owners, it does serve to highlight the newly autonomous nature of these Retained CPVRs in the UK, which will have important implications for rightholders in future. Except in cases where challenges to the validity of the parent CPVRs were already pending before the CPVO at the time of Brexit (in which case, a revocation decision by the CPVO would in most cases also result in the revocation of the corresponding UK right), rCPVRs are now completely independent of their EU counterparts. This has a number of important implications for the potential enforcement of such rights. Most obviously, even a final decision on the validity of an EU CPVR would not have any effect on the corresponding UK rCPVR, or vice versa.
However, the new situation will also have more subtle impacts on infringement claims – a pending validity challenge before the CPVO would no longer provide as compelling a reason for a lengthy stay of PVR infringement proceedings in the UK, since the outcome of the validity challenge would no longer directly affect the validity of the UK right. Similarly, the complex question of whether importation of “harvested material” (including fruits and vegetables) obtained from a protected variety to the UK may be blocked on the basis that the rightholder had failed to exercise a “reasonable opportunity” to assert its rights elsewhere, could be analysed very differently now that the PVRs being asserted in the UK have a separate territorial scope to the corresponding EU rights. Even issues such as the CJEU’s controversial interpretation of the scope of “unauthorised use” of protected plant varieties in C-176/18 are potentially open to being revisited in the UK, as the higher UK courts are now able to depart from retained CJEU case law using the same tests traditionally applied to their own precedents.
What these developments will mean for the prospects of litigating PVR infringement or validity in the UK remains unclear. However, in principle, the new situation allows for decisions on PVRs to be obtained more quickly in the UK than was previously possible, which may make litigation a more attractive prospect for UK PVR holders.
“…the UK courts will continue to provide high quality decisions which will have impact beyond its shores, including before the new court.”
Powell Gilbert partner Alex Wilson writes for The Times this morning on the UPC launch and its implications for the UK.
Read here.
Find out more about the launch of our new Ireland office and how it builds on the firm’s role in the UPC, here.
