2025 was a challenging year for intellectual property protection, with developments such as artificial intelligence (AI), copycat products and the proliferation of online dupes testing the limitations of existing legislation and paving the way for new legal challenges in 2026.
All is not lost, however. IP remains a relevant, nay, crucial, consideration for most businesses, with potential Design Law reforms and the successful second year of the Unified Patent Court both strong examples of how this area of law is meeting the challenges head-on. Here, we explore the five most important developments in the world of IP in 2025 and examine what 2026 might have in store.
1. Thatchers v Aldi: The death knell for lookalikes and copycats?
A possible route to countering lookalikes and copycats was asserted last year when the Court of Appeal of England & Wales found that Aldi Stores Limited (‘Aldi’) had infringed a trade mark owned by Thatchers Cider Company Limited (‘Thatchers’).
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the graphics on the packaging for Aldi’s TAURUS CLOUDY CIDER LEMON product had infringed Thatchers’ UK registered trade mark for its THATCHERS CLOUDY LEMON CIDER under section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
Whilst the product names were different, and whilst there was no likelihood of consumers being confused, the Court found that Aldi had nevertheless taken unfair advantage of the repute of Thatchers’ trade mark by developing packaging that was sufficiently similar to that of the Thatchers product to convey a message that its product was of a similar quality, only cheaper, and thereby achieving substantial sales of Aldi’s product within a short period of time without having to spend anything on promoting it.
This judgment is likely to embolden trade mark owners to bring proceedings against ‘lookalikes’ or dupes on the basis that they infringe their registered trade mark via the lookalike product’s labelling or packaging design, even when there is no likelihood of causing confusion amongst consumers.
2. Getty Images v Stability AI provides few answers on copyright and AI
Questions remain concerning copyrighted materials used to train AI models after a long-awaited judgment by the English High Court highlighted the difficulty and complexity in bringing copyright infringement claims.
In Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v. Stability AI Limited [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch), the Court held that the training of Stability AI’s deep learning AI model, ‘Stable Diffusion’, did not constitute an “infringing copy” for the purposes of section 27(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (‘the CDPA’) on the basis that there was no storage of any infringing images by Stable Diffusion, despite the fact that its training had involved the use of copyrighted copies of digital images from sites such as Getty Images.
This was the latest in a series of legal blows for Getty Images, which had already abandoned its claim for ‘primary’ copyright infringement after finding no evidence that any of Stable Diffusion’s training and development had taken place in the UK.
The case is far from over, with Getty Images having since been granted permission to appeal, in particular in relation to the question of whether Stable Diffusion itself is an “infringing copy” and hence whether the training of AI models may involve secondary infringement of copyright.
3. BSH v Electrolux clarifies cross-border patent litigation in Europe
A landmark ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) last year shifted away from previous case law by amplifying the reach of both the national courts of EU member states and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).
In BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB, the CJEU ruled that the national court of any EU member state may determine infringement actions relating to foreign patent designations of EU and non-EU patents, even if their validity is challenged by way of a defence, provided that the defendant is domiciled in that member state and alleged to have infringed the relevant foreign patent designations or foreign patents.
The CJEU’s judgment also clarified a number of key points, including:
- under Article 4(1) Brussels I Recast Regulation, the court of the member state in which the defendant is domiciled has jurisdiction to hear infringement actions regarding foreign patents, even if their validity is challenged;
- article 24(4) provides exclusive jurisdiction only over validity disputes, not infringement actions;
- the jurisdictional rule above also extends to non-EU patents (including UK patents), allowing EU courts to hear infringement actions concerning these patents under the same principles.
Whilst this ruling enables patent holders to bring consolidated (and therefore convenient and procedurally efficient) enforcement actions in a single member state, it may also augment the prevalence of forum shopping for patent disputes.
4. Progress in Design Law reform
In late 2025, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) closed a consultation on Design Law reforms for modernising, simplifying and strengthening the current design protection framework.
The proposed reforms aim to streamline overlapping rights following the UK’s departure from the EU, and develop a framework that better reflects technological developments, supports digital and AI-driven innovation, and protects designers.
Key proposals include:
- expanding search and examination capabilities by, either granting the UKIPO powers to search prior designs and reject applications that lack novelty or individual character, or introducing a two-stage registration system that requires a full examination before design rights can be enforced;
- introducing a bad faith ground for rejecting applications made with dishonest intentions;
- enabling third parties to challenge filings, similar to the current trade mark opposition mechanism;
- extending the 12-month deferment period to either 18 or 30 months;
- accepting computer-aided design (CAD) files and video clips in application forms, and updating legal definitions to capture graphical user interfaces (GUI) and animated works;
- reassessing the protection available for designs created without a human author, such as those generated by AI;
- simplifying unregistered design rights by, either abolishing the unregistered design right and maintaining the supplementary one, or consolidating both unregistered rights into a single framework;
- updating legislation to clarify the distinction between designs and copyright;
- recognising mutual disclosures in both the UK and EU for unregistered design rights;
- enabling the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court’s (IPEC) small claims track to handle registered design disputes;
- introducing criminal sanctions for design infringement.
Find out more about the proposed changes to the UK designs framework here.
5. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) turned two
Now in its third year, the UPC has officially solidified its role as a major venue for European patent disputes, demonstrating both procedural efficiency and pragmatic case management.
The UPC has now established its standards for both inventive step and sufficiency of disclosure, with new principles differing from the European Patent Office’s (EPO) long-established ‘Problem-Solution Approach’. It has also issued several important decisions concerning cross-border injunctions. Based on the reasoning established in BSH v Electrolux (see above), these decisions affect even non-UPC countries such as the UK and Spain.
Technological advancements continue to outpace legislation, and this brings with it many challenges for intellectual property law. Proposed reforms, as well as case law, will help to bridge the gaps, but businesses also need to engage with specialists that can advise on the latest developments and how these impact current strategies relating to IP.