Law and practice snippets: June 2026
An update on recent practice points by our Law and Practice Committee, including sharp practice warnings, dispute resolution, and the EU Design Reform.
News of note
UK IPO – ‘One IPO’ digital transformation programme
As part of its transformation programme, the UK IPO has launched a suite of digital services to apply for, manage and renew UK patents. The services launched on 1st April 2026 and all of the IPO’s core patents services are now available on the new platform (with some searching services having been launched in 2025). For IP professionals, the services are accessed via a user account, with one person in each firm acting as the account administrator and being responsible for inviting other users within the organisation into the service.
Now that the new patents services are available, the IPO will shortly begin phase two of its One IPO transformation programme which relate to new digital services for trade marks.
The UK IPO’s update is available 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 – 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.
Companies House and the UK IPO recently published a joint warning for businesses on unsolicited payment requests and how to identify them.
Contact details for reporting to Action Fraud and to the IPO can be found here.
International updates
WIPO – UDRP fee schedule and new services
WIPO has recently updated its UDRP service to include 1) a priority service for expedited case processing, and 2) a revised fee schedule to reflect the advent of cases terminated prior to formal notification.
The launch of expedited case processing is intended for cases where a complainant has an urgent need for case resolution. Cases will be handled by a dedicated team, and decisions will be issued within one-month. The complainant fee for expedited case processing is US$4,000, for cases involving between 1 to 5 domain names with the same registrant only.
WIPO has also introduced a reduced fee for early case termination. In some cases, before a case is formally notified, a complainant immediately requests to terminate the case (for example, in cases where the registrant can invoke a defense that could not have been known before the case was filed). WIPO will refund the majority of the case filing fees, retaining only US$100 to reflect the limited administrative case processing.
Full details are available here.
WIPO – Changes to Dispute Resolution for .UK
From 7th July 2026, the administration of Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service (“DRS”) will transfer to the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Arbitration and Mediation Center (“WIPO”). The service itself remains unchanged with the same expert panellists working to the existing DRS Policy, Nominet staff facilitated mediation, and the same fee schedule.
From 7th July 2026, .UK DRS submissions will be made via WIPO’s website, and all newly filed cases will be administered by WIPO. Any cases filed before this transition date will stay with Nominet until completion. The full searchable archive of historic DRS decisions will remain online.
EU IPO – EU Design Reform phase 2
Following the more substantive reforms which came into force in 2025 as part of phase 1 of the EU Design Reform, two new Regulations were adopted on 15th January 2026 and will apply from 1st July 2026: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/138 and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/137.
The changes effective from 1st July 2026 allow new representation formats for applicants in order to more accurately show digital designs and products. Specifically, Article 2 of the Implementing Regulation confirms that representations can be “static, dynamic or animated and shall be effected by any appropriate means, using generally available technology, including drawings, photographs, videos, computer imaging or computer modelling”. In addition, the seven-view restriction is repealed, although applicants must ensure that the views submitted collectively show the design consistently.
More information is available here.
Cases of note
Julia Mazur & Ors v Chartered Institute of Legal Executives [2026] EWCA Civ 369
On 30th March 2026, the Court of Appeal issued its judgement on the appeal brought in relation to the High Court case of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP. The case concerned the proper meaning of the words “carry on the conduct of litigation” as they are used in the Legal Services Act 2007 (the 2007 Act). The question was whether people working in a law firm or a law centre, who are not themselves authorised individuals under the 2007 Act (unauthorised persons), are carrying on the conduct of litigation if they do so under the supervision of an authorised individual.
The Court of Appeal judgement clarifies that an “unauthorised person can lawfully perform any tasks, which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation, for and on behalf of an authorised individual such as a solicitor or appropriately authorised CILEX member. The authorised individual retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person. The authorised individual is, therefore, the person carrying on the conduct of litigation. The unauthorised person is not carrying on the conduct of litigation and does not commit an offence. As regards the regulatory position, the delegation of tasks by the authorised individual to the unauthorised person requires proper management supervision and control, the details of which are a matter for the regulators. In some circumstances the degree of appropriate control and supervision will be high, with approval required before things are done. In other, for example routine, circumstances, a lower level of control and supervision will be required. In such cases, it may be sufficient for the authorised individual to conduct regular meetings with the unauthorised person and to sample their work.” (paragraph 25)
IPReg recommends that those involved in conducting litigation read the full judgement and ensure the adequacy of any supervision arrangements in place as appropriate. IPReg’s updated statement can be found here.