Law and practice snippets: February 2026
An update on recent practice points by our Law and Practice Committee, including changes to the Nice Classification, fee increases and a Supreme Court decision.
News of note
UK IPO – Fees increase from 1st April 2026
The UK IPO confirmed on 5th November 2025 that it plans to increase fees by an average of 25%, subject to parliamentary approval. Under the new structure, which is intended to take effect from 1st April 2026, trade mark fees will rise. The fee for filing a trade mark application online in one class will increase from £170 to £205, and renewal fees will increase from £200 to £245 for an online renewal in one class. Additional class fees at filing and renewal will increase from £50 to £60.
Full details, including a link to the full table of cost increases can be found here. CITMA’s update on the fee increases can be found here.
WIPO - Nice Classification changes from 1st January 2026
The 13th edition of the Nice Classification took effect from 1st January 2026, with some significant changes and new entries. Examples of reclassification of terms include corrective glasses, contact lenses and sunglasses being moved from class 9 to class 10, and electrically heated garments moving from class 11 to class 25.
For further guidance, please refer to WIPO’s update here and CITMA’s update here.
Working with the registries
Via the Law and Practice Committee, CITMA meets regularly with the UK IPO and other registries to discuss points of practice and raise important feedback and questions submitted by members.
UK IPO – Customer service standards
The UK IPO current rate of issuance of trade mark examination reports is 90% within 10 working days, and 90% within 13 working days for design applications. As practitioners will be aware, the rate of issuance of hearing decisions is still considerably slower than the IPO’s target of three months, with the latest figures from January 2026 showing that 90% of decisions are being issued within 13 months and 25 days of either a hearing taking place or after the deadline for all submissions to be filed. The Law and Practice Committee continue to liaise with the IPO to discuss these timescales.
The UK IPO regularly update the data provided on their website relating to customer service standards, full details of which can be found here.
UK IPO and Department for Business and Trade
The committee is working with contacts from the IPO and the Department for Business and Trade (“DPT”) to provide feedback on the DPT’s plans for “UK Government International IP Engagement” in 2026. The DBT welcomes feedback from members on positive and negative experiences relating to IP registration and enforcement in specific regions they are focusing on just now, specifically Egypt and Pakistan. Members are invited to share feedback and comments on any systematic challenges in these territories with the committee at [email protected]. Further detail will be provided by the committee when updates are received from the DBT.
UK IPO – Scam emails and reporting of sharp practice
We continue to monitor fraudulent requests for payments and other examples of sharp practice. Please do continue to advise clients of the likelihood of receiving these communications and to report anything suspicious. Members can send examples to [email protected], marked for the attention of the Law & Practice Committee along with confirmation that the client is happy for the information to be sent to the UK IPO.
Contact details for reporting to Action Fraud and to the IPO can be found here.
International updates
EUIPO – Launch of new transparency initiative for design documents
From 14th November 2025, users of eSearch plus have access to a broader range of non-confidential design documents, including original application forms and subsequent correspondence with the EUIPO. Previously, only registration certificates were available along with the biographical data such as filing dates and owner details.
More information available here.
WIPO – Payments to Credit Suisse will be rejected after March 2026
From 31st March 2026, any payment made to WIPO’s Credit Suisse accounts will be rejected. To avoid delays in payments being received and processed, it is advised to only use WIPO’s UBS Switzerland bank details for all payments thereafter.
More information is available here.
Qatar – Launch of Industrial Design Registration System
The Qatari Ministry of Commerce and Industry has begun accepting industrial design applications, with the new system allowing applicants to claim a six-month priority period and to include up to 100 drawings in a single application, provided all designs belong to the same Locarno class. Following successful examination and publication, protection is granted for an initial five years, renewable twice for a maximum term of 15 years.
More information available here.
Cases of note
Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB [2026] UKSC 4
In its decision of 11th February 2026, the Supreme Court confirmed that Oatly’s trade mark for POST MILK GENERATION was invalid for oat-based food and drink products, following a long running dispute between the parties.
Oatly originally registered the trade mark POST MILK GENERATION in April 2021 in relation to oat-based food and drink products in classes 29, 30, and 32, as well as t-shirts in class 25. Dairy UK Ltd, the trade association for the UK dairy industry, applied to invalidate the registration for oat-based food and drink products on the basis that it breached EU Regulation No.1308/2013. The regulation is now assimilated into UK law and governs the use of dairy terms such as “milk” in relation to the marketing of agricultural products.
The IPO found that Oatly’s registration breached the regulation in relation to food and drink products, a decision which was successfully appealed before the High Court. The case was then brought before the Court of Appeal, which reinstated the IPO’s original finding.
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, Oatly argued that the term "designation" used in the Regulation meant the name of a product, and that as they were not using the term as the name of their product, their use was not prevented by the Regulation. However, in this latest decision, the Supreme Court dismissed Oatly’s appeal, noting that “The prohibition bites where the designation has been used for a relevant product, and it is not necessary that it has been used as the name of the product.”