Case comments

This dispute was not easy to resolve, writes Samuel O’Toole, but the IPEC ruled that confusion was unlikely for these two marks. [2026] EWHC 767 (IPEC), easyGroup Ltd v Easyfeetstore OÜ & Ors.

The Court of Appeal ruled that a video-sharing platform’s name was clearly descriptive and did not infringe a film company’s trade mark, writes Celia Tao. The Court of Appeal ruled that a video-sharing platform’s name was clearly descriptive and did not infringe a film company’s trade mark, writes Celia Tao.

Can the title of a novel become a registered trade mark? In the case of two of George Orwell’s famous works, only up to a point, writes Luke Ingleton. R 1719/2019-G Animal Farm & R 1922/2019-G 1984, EUIPO Grand Board of Appeal.

Saaira Gill reviews four recent decisions on revocation actions filed against marks containing a certain descriptive word. O/0345/26 Kilburn & Strode LLP v Tubeway (Sales) Ltd; O/0341/26 Kilburn & Strode LLP v Omnicell GmbH; O/0440/26 Kilburn & Strode LLP v Lascar Electronics Ltd; O/0421/26 Kilburn & Strode LLP v Easibathe Ltd.

A footwear company argued that its shoe strap had individual character, but that claim was given the boot, writes Eleni Mezulanik. T-228/25, Crocs, Inc v EUIPO – Gor Factory, SA.

Is a word mark with a non-intrinsic colour in its title descriptive in relation to the goods it represents? Jade MacIntyre finds out. T-56/25, Rose Bikes GmbH v EUIPO.

There is no concept of assessing genuine use of a family of marks, because a family of marks is not a registered right, writes Saskia Caseman. O/0430/26, easyGroup Ltd v The Support Group (UK) Ltd.

This EUIPO decision shows the limits of weak elements in EU trade mark law, writes Charlene Nelson. B 3 230 804 and B 3 230 826, Swiss Pharma International AG v Zdrovit Romania SRL, EUIPO Opposition Division.