Review of key IP Cases In 2024 Influencing 2025 and Beyond
IP Cases Influencing Future IP Strategy
Key 2024-2025 IP Legal Trends You Should Monitor
Copyright, patent and trademark cases of 2024 that will influence the future IP legal landscape into 2025 and beyond
The intellectual property (IP) law landscape continues evolving, with significant developments in 2024 shaping how businesses protect their digital content. Understanding these changes is crucial for entities ranging from startup founders to SME business owners, as it safeguards creative assets against unauthorised use.
This comprehensive review of 2024 and 2025 cases delves into key legal cases that defined 2024 IP law and will have a lasting effect on 2025 and future IP law.
By analysing these important cases, businesses can better navigate the complexities of intellectual property rights and proactively protect their digital assets.
The Online Google Ads Interflora Case 2025
Interflora Inc. sued Prestige Gifting Ltd., trading as Prestige Flowers, and two others in December 2024 in IPEC in an ongoing Internet-related trademark infringement claim that will continue into 2025 and beyond. The IPEC claim number is IP-2024-000140. The case continues the same issues raised when Interflora sued Marks and Spencers in 2014. See Interflora Inc and another v Marks and Spencer plc [2014] EWCA Civ 1403.
This 2024 case again raises critical questions about trademark hijacking online.
This case concerns online advertising, specifically keyword advertising on platforms like Google. Interflora, renowned for its floral delivery services, is once again contesting competitors’ misuse of its trademark in Google AdWords.
The contentious issue of trademark use in the online promotion of digital assets will not disappear. Furthermore, as the phenomenon of YouTubers and other social media channels using trademark keywords to drive traffic to their videos continues, it will not be long before the highest courts must decide whether all the diverse, imaginative uses of registered trademarks online constitute fair use. The implications of this situation could redefine the parameters of fair use and trademark infringement in digital advertising and marketing techniques, offering critical insights for SMEs and other businesses seeking to protect their trademarks online from those who seek to exploit them for their own financial gain.
Getty Images v Stability AI [2024]
In the ongoing battle into 2025 and far beyond, Getty Images is taking the fight between creative rights and artificial intelligence data scrapping to the courts. Getty Images v Stability AI is a very important case to watch. The dispute centres around Stability AI's use of Getty Images' copyrighted material to train AI models. Getty Images contended that Stability AI's actions constituted copyright infringement, as using images without appropriate licensing violated their intellectual property rights.
Sky Ltd v SkyKick UK Ltd [2024] UKSC 36:
This long-running case focused on the ‘Bad Faith’ standard in section 3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The case commenced in 2018 and came to a conclusion in the Supreme Court in 2024, after rulings from the CJEU in 2020 and decisions by the Court of Appeal in 2021. In summary, Sky (the respondents) filed a claim against SkyKick (the appellants) for infringing its registered SKY trademarks, asserting that SkyKick utilised the name for its email and cloud storage products and services. SkyKick contested the infringement and counterclaimed, asserting that Sky’s trademarks were invalid based on bad faith, claiming there was no intention to use the marks and that Sky’s trademark registrations were excessively broad and should be revoked. Following the Court of Appeal’s overturning of the High Court’s ruling—which had determined that Sky’s trademarks were invalid due to bad faith—SkyKick proceeded with an appeal.
The UK Supreme Court agreed that a trademark may be invalidated where the use was too broad and there was no genuine intention to use amounting to bad faith.
The decision in Sky Ltd v Skykick UK Ltd addresses significant issues surrounding trademark registration and revocation. The UK Supreme Court’s ruling underscored the necessity of specificity in trademark applications. It reaffirmed the principle that trademarks must be precise and not overly broad, ensuring that businesses cannot monopolise common terms without genuine use or intent. This case is a vital reference for companies aiming to protect their brand names while steering clear of overly expansive claims. It is a key case in 2024 and 2025 and is discussed extensively in our other articles.
The Temu Case
Temu v Shein 2024
The case Temu case began in 2024. Two online fashion shops began a legal dispute regarding copyright violations and anti-competitive conduct. Temu alleged that Shein had engaged in anti-competitive behaviour by demanding exclusive agreements with suppliers, while Shein accused Temu of using copyrighted photos without permission. The case is set for trial in 2026 and will bring to light the intricacies of competition law and intellectual property rights in the context of online retail.
Shein v Temu (preparing for trial in 2026)
The Temu case has garnered attention for its implications for digital marketplaces and IP enforcement. Temu, an online platform that facilitates the sale of third-party products, was accused of enabling the sale of counterfeit goods. The case examines the responsibility of online platforms to monitor and remove infringing content.
The court's decision emphasised the duty of digital platforms to implement proactive measures to prevent the sale of counterfeit goods. This ruling reminds e-commerce businesses to establish robust IP enforcement mechanisms and collaborate with rights holders to protect their brands effectively.
It is a key case in 2024 and 2025 and is discussed extensively in our other articles.
Jonas Jödicke v Unauthorised Art Usage 2024
In the realm of digital art, Jonas Jödicke v Unauthorised Art Usage 2024 has set a precedent for protecting artists' rights. Jödicke, a renowned digital artist, filed a lawsuit against entities using his artwork without permission. The case explored the challenges artists face in safeguarding their creations in the digital age.
The court's ruling affirmed the importance of obtaining explicit consent from artists before using their work. This decision reinforces artists’ rights to control the use of their creations and serves as a warning to businesses and individuals seeking to exploit digital art without proper authorisation.
Amazon UK Services Ltd. v. Lifestyle Equities CV and Others 2024 UKSC 8
The case of *Amazon UK Services Ltd. v. Lifestyle Equities CV and Others 2024 UKSC 8 addresses the complex intersection of e-commerce and trademark infringement. Lifestyle Equities alleged that Amazon facilitated the sale of counterfeit products bearing their trademark on its platform.
The UK Supreme Court's ruling emphasised the responsibility of e-commerce platforms to act against the sale of counterfeit goods. It highlighted the need for platforms to implement stringent measures to identify and prevent the distribution of infringing products. This case serves as a critical reference for online businesses aiming to maintain the integrity of their platforms and protect consumer trust and is disucssed in several of our other articles.
Waterrower (UK) Limited v Liking Limited (t/a TOPIOM) 2024 EWHC 2086
The case between WaterRower and Liking Limited revolves around patent infringement and design rights. The court's ruling in favour of WaterRower emphasises the significance of design rights in protecting innovative products. This case illustrates businesses’ need to secure patent and design rights to shield their inventions from competitors.
In this case, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) examined whether the design of a rowing machine could be protected under copyright law. Waterrower claimed that the design was not just functional but also a work of artistic craftsmanship, deserving copyright protection.
The Court ruled that the design of Waterrower's rowing machine did not qualify as a "work of artistic craftsmanship" under UK copyright law. While the design displayed originality and skill, it was deemed primarily functional and lacked the artistic merit required for copyright protection under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA).
This decision emphasised the stricter UK standard for copyright in functional designs, contrasting with broader protections under EU law. It dismissed Waterrower’s claim of infringement against TOPIOM. This important decision highlights the challenges of protecting functional designs under copyright laws, which are discussed extensively in other articles on our blog.
Key Takeaways for SMEs and Entrepreneurs
The legal developments of 2024 highlight the importance of proactive IP protection strategies for small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and entrepreneurs. Here are essential takeaways for businesses seeking to navigate the complex landscape of intellectual property law:
Understand the Scope of Trademark Use: The Online Google Ads Interflora case underscores the need for businesses to evaluate their use of trademarks in online advertising carefully.
Seek advice on Copyrights in AI Development. The Getty Images v Stability AI case illustrates the need for AI developers to secure appropriate licenses when using copyrighted material. Businesses must prioritise compliance with copyright laws to mitigate legal risks.
Ensure Specificity in Trademark Applications: The ruling in Sky Ltd v Skykick UK Ltd highlights the importance of precise trademark applications. Companies should avoid overly broad claims and focus on genuine use to protect their brand names effectively.
Implement Robust IP Enforcement Measures: The Temu case emphasises the responsibility of digital marketplaces to prevent the sale of counterfeit goods. E-commerce businesses should establish proactive IP enforcement mechanisms to safeguard their brands.
Obtain Explicit Consent for Art Usage: The Jonas Jödicke case reinforces artists’ rights and the need for explicit consent before using their work. Businesses must respect artists' intellectual property rights to avoid legal disputes.
Strengthen Measures Against Counterfeit Goods: The Amazon UK Services Ltd. case highlights the importance of e-commerce platforms in combating counterfeit sales. Online businesses should implement stringent measures to identify and prevent the distribution of infringing products.
By staying informed about these legal developments and implementing effective IP protection strategies, SMEs can safeguard their digital content and ensure the longevity of their creative assets in an increasingly complex legal landscape.
IP Developments That Will Shape Intellectual Property Law
Cases to Watch in 2025
Trademark Registration and Disputes Lawyers - Copyright Lawyers And Patent Lawyers and Solicitors London
At PAIL Solicitors, we have expertise in registering complex trademarks; we will advise you properly on copyright protection of IP assets and the patent rights, trade secrets and design rights implications of your operations. To obtain a quotation, please contact us at (020) 7305-7491 or at petert@pailsolicitors.co.uk. We would be delighted to assist you. The writer is an Internet and digital technologies + entertainment law specialist, owner and principal solicitor at PAIL® Solicitors. Peter Adediran's specialist niche practice areas are digital media business SMEs and IP, both contentious and non-contentious.
Useful Links
Choosing AI Legal Advice in London
YouTube Channel Copyright Protection Challenges