Insights

The UK Intellectual Property Office published a ready-to-use package on 23 July 2026 to help partners and stakeholders explain intellectual property to small businesses and start-ups. The materials include adaptable social media copy, supporting images and alt text, plus short and long e-newsletter templates that direct businesses to official guidance and local support.

France’s National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) has accepted an application for protected geographical indication status for Morta, the fossilised wood found in the Brière marshes. Filed by the Association des artisans de la Morta en Brière (ABAM), it is the third application handled by INPI under the EU’s new geographical indication framework for craft and industrial products, after santons de Provence and espadrilles de Catalogne.

The rules have applied since 1 December 2025. INPI examines the national stage, while the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is responsible for registration at EU level. Morta is a useful early test of how the new system may work for small, place-based craft sectors: acceptance opens the procedure, but the applicant group will still need to demonstrate a credible link with the territory, a shared product specification and workable limits on use of the name.

The Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) has announced a technical upgrade to the i-DEPOT digital filing system on Monday 27 and Tuesday 28 July 2026. The service will be temporarily unavailable during the maintenance window, so users planning to file materials, create timestamped evidence or manage existing records should adjust their schedules and verify submission confirmations once access is restored.

Although this is a planned technical interruption, it can still affect time-sensitive evidence strategies. Users should avoid leaving critical filings until the edge of the outage period, allow extra time for document preparation and payment, and consider alternative evidence-preservation steps where a fixed deadline or commercial milestone cannot be moved.

On 3 June 2026, the Paris Judicial Court ruled in a dispute brought by Hermès International and Hermès Sellier against Le Bidon Français, a French gallery operator. The defendant displayed and sold decorative objects—including crushed cans, trays and fire extinguishers—bearing Hermès word and figurative marks, while also using the Hermès name in product listings and social-media promotion. The court found that the signs were being used to market and sell goods, amounting to trademark infringement, and also upheld Hermès Sellier’s unfair competition claim.

The ruling does not say that artistic works may never refer to trademarks. Its sharper point is that artistic expression is not an automatic defence once a sign is used across the object itself, sales pages and promotional material in a way that capitalises on a luxury brand’s reputation. For galleries, designers and creative businesses, the case is a practical warning: once a work enters commercial distribution, courts are likely to examine how prominently the mark is shown, whether its use is genuinely necessary to the expression, and whether consumers may infer authorisation or an economic link.

On 4 December 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in Joined Cases C-580/23 and C-795/23 on the copyright standard for works of applied art. Case C-795/23 arose from the dispute between USM and Konektra over the USM Haller modular furniture system. The Court held that applied art is not subject to a higher originality threshold than other works: protection depends on whether the object reflects free and creative choices that express the author’s personality. Choices dictated by technical function, ergonomics, safety requirements or industry standards do not, by themselves, qualify as protected expression. The CJEU did not decide that the USM Haller system is ultimately protected; that factual assessment remains for the German court.

The judgment shifts attention away from reputation, artistic prestige or visual appeal and back to the specific creative expression claimed. Evidence such as the designer’s intention, sources of inspiration, earlier forms, independent similar creations, museum recognition or professional acclaim may assist the analysis, but none is decisive. Infringement likewise cannot rest only on an overall visual impression; the court must identify whether protected creative elements have been reproduced in a recognisable form. For furniture and industrial-product businesses, the practical lesson is to document precisely which shapes, proportions, combinations or structural arrangements resulted from genuine creative freedom, while separating those features from elements required by function.

A Kazakhstan dispute between “The Economist” and “The Ecolomist” offers an unusual, but hardly risk-free, example of an international brand succeeding without a registered mark in the target country. “The Ecolomist” was registered in June 2024 for Classes 16, 35 and 41, after which The Economist Newspaper Limited challenged the registration. Although its international registrations did not extend to Kazakhstan and the mark had not been formally recognised there as well known, the authorities and courts gave weight to local consumer awareness, similarity between the signs and the risk of misleading association, leading to the disputed registration being invalidated.

The decision should not be read as a rule that worldwide reputation automatically travels across borders. Protection for an unregistered famous mark still depends on persuasive local evidence, such as circulation, subscriptions, advertising reach, website traffic, search data, press coverage and consumer surveys. For brands entering markets where they have not yet filed, the safer course is to secure a national application or designate the country through the Madrid System while preserving evidence of local exposure. Where conflict has already arisen, invalidation or opposition proceedings may be combined, where available, with well-known-mark recognition, misleading-registration provisions, unfair competition arguments and trade-name protection. The Economist’s result shows that reputation can open a route to relief, but it remains a substitute of last resort for a clear registered right.