[The IPKat] Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!

[Wissam Bentazar]

Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!

 Wissam Bentazar Friday, February 27, 2026 -#NeverTooLate, #UPC, Artificial Intelligence, Wissam Bentazar

Before the thaw

In this in-between season, still skating on winter’s thin ice while spring waits in the wings. Even as the shadows shortened, the IP docket didn’t slow its pace. Here’s your weekly glide through the developments.

Copyright

Georgia Jenkins tookreaders onto thin ice with her analysis of generative AI logos under German copyright law. The Munich court held that originality requires genuine human creative dominance, not just prompting, tweaking or selecting machine-generated options. None of the logos survived. Her post sharpened the tension between the CJEU’s uniform originality standard and the increasingly scrutinised role of human input in AI-assisted creation.

Designs

Oliver Fairhurst examined Luxe World v Touch of Vogue (IPEC), where the court struck out a claim for an account of profits in unjustified threats proceedings. While accounts remained available in infringement claims, they did not extend to threats under the Registered Designs Act 1949. The court also required the claimant to quantify damages and pay the correct court fee, drawing a clear remedial and procedural boundary that practitioners will not ignore.

Patents 

On IP air, Mike Gruber, Christina Guazzi, Harry Hughes and Jess Gilbert crunched the 2025 UPC numbers. Infringement actions dominated filings, patentees prevailed in just over half of decided cases, and preliminary injunctions continued to function as a powerful strategic tool. Standalone revocation actions showed a slightly higher revocation rate than counterclaims. The data offered a concrete snapshot of how the UPC evolved and where litigants might position themselves in 2026.

Trade Marks 

Marcel Pemsel unpacked the CJEU’s decision in EUIPO v Nowhere, where the Court held that an earlier right relied upon under Article 8(4) EUTMR had to exist not only at the filing date of the contested mark but also at the date of the EUIPO or Board of Appeal decision. Once the transition period ended, UK rights could no longer ground EU opposition proceedings. The judgment reinforces the territorial logic of the EUTMR and ensures that Brexit delivered yet another doctrinal twist.

Events / Miscellany

Claire Gregg gathered the latest developments in Saturday Sundries, highlighting upcoming SPC webinars, CIPIL’s annual lecture and spring conference, PTMG’s Munich meeting, and looming EPO and UKIPO fee increases.

Eleonora Rosati followed up in Tuesday Tiddlywinks with further event updates, including the return of Retromark in March, IPRE 2026 in Geneva, and preparations for World IP Day under the theme “IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate”.