|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
This is the fourteenth edition of our BAD Team’s blog (that is, our Brands, Advertising and Designs Team) and below we list things you need to be aware of….
Before we do:
The 2026 FIFA World Cup is fast approaching!
The four-week tournament kicks off on June 15th. As always, it’s set to deliver unparalleled global reach with a TV audience of more than 5 billion – along with one of the most tightly policed marketing environments anywhere. FIFA rigorously protects sponsor exclusivity, monitoring digital campaigns, influencer activity and on-the-ground activations in real time. Enforcement can be immediate and public, often driven by how consumers perceive an association or implied link, rather than whether protected assets are used. For non-sponsors, the opportunity is clear, but so is the risk – participation is possible, but only if campaigns are carefully designed to avoid implying any official link.
Come and talk to us first if there are any concerns.
London Design Festival 2026
Despite INTA being behind us and heading into the rear-view, the spotlight returns back to London early in the autumn for the capital’s flagship creative event.
Taking place 12–20 September 2026, the London Design Festival is a nine day, city wide programme celebrating the city’s status as a global design and innovation capital, with hundreds of exhibitions, installations and events across the city.
Once again, we’ll be participating with our high-profile client seminar and a host of speaker sessions, blogs, podcasts and timely insights.
News
1. Fake reviews and drip pricing under the DMCCA spotlight
Consumer law compliance is no longer a “nice to have”
In our previous edition, we celebrated milestones under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) highlighting early enforcement action. The pace has not slowed down.
Zoe Pearman recently recorded a podcast outlining some of the key developments discussed at our ADVice seminar in January. The message is clear – consumer law has been pushed to the very top of the business compliance agenda. The DMCCA largely repealed and restated the previous law on unfair commercial practices, but it also added important new requirements around fake reviews and drip pricing. Critically, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) now has the power to directly investigate matters and to issue fines and enforcement notices without going to court, with fines of up to £300,000 or 10% of annual global turnover, whichever is higher.
On fake reviews, the DMCCA introduced a new banned practice making it automatically unfair and illegal for businesses or individuals to submit or commission bogus reviews, conceal incentivised reviews, publish reviews in a misleading way, or offer services to procure banned reviews. It is not just about the content of reviews either. Suppressing, cherry-picking favourable reviews or displaying an aggregated star rating that fails to address the impact of fake reviews, is called out by the CMA guidance as being problematic.
Listen to the full podcast.
Take a look at further guidance on misleading reviews and the CMA guidance.
2. Do not use misleading urgency tactics
What do we mean by this?
Well, the CMA recently considered that Emma Sleep was using misleading timers and false ‘high demand’ messages and ‘discount’ claims which created undue fake pressure on consumers to make purchases quickly.
While urgency claims are not inherently illegal, care must be taken.
Claims are more likely to be compliant when:
- Thet are factually accurate and substantiated.
- They are clear and transparent.
- Do not create artificial pressure.
- Do not mislead regarding availability, timing or pricing.
To audit your online sales journey and ensure CMA compliance, speak to Dan Smith or Zoe Pearman.
Read the full article.
3. “Since 1717” — when heritage becomes misleading in trademark law
Fashion’s long-standing fondness for expressions such as “Since 1717” has now met judicial scrutiny.
In March 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that a trademark can be deceptive when an old date embedded within the sign itself leads consumers to believe in centuries-old know-how and prestige that do not, in fact, exist. The ruling can justify refusal or invalidity under EU law, and national courts must now do the hard, fact-specific work of assessing such claims.
The ruling arose from a referral by the Cour de Cassation in the long-running dispute between Goyard and Fauré Le Page over the validity of FAURÉ LE PAGE PARIS 1717 trademarks for luxury leather goods. The CJEU was asked to interpret Article 3(1)(g) of the now-repealed but applicable Trademarks Directive No 2008/95, under which a sign is “of such a nature as to deceive” if, taken as a whole, it misleads the relevant public about a characteristic of the goods, “for instance as to the nature, quality or geographical origin”.
The court held that references such as “since 1717”, when incorporated into a mark, may function as implied quality claims. If fictitious and understood as indicating a founding year conferring quality and prestige, the mark may be refused or invalidated for deceptiveness and no intent to mislead is required.
This is an important reminder for brand owners: heritage claims in trademarks are not merely decorative. They carry legal weight, and if they cannot be substantiated, they are vulnerable to challenge. Read the full article.
4. China cracks down on trademark squatters – and this time, it’s personal
For international brand owners operating in China, bad-faith trademark filings have long been one of the most persistent and frustrating risks.
Recently, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) signalled a far stricter judicial approach to tackling systematic bad-faith filings. Rather than treating trademark squatting as a series of isolated registration disputes, the SPC is reframing it as a form of market order disruption under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (AUCL). This reflects a continued judicial focus on addressing the problem at its root, reinforcing an enforcement pathway that enables courts to intervene more effectively against organised and commercialised squatting practices.
The key judicial takeaways from the SPC’s decision are significant. First, courts will now assess whether a pattern of behaviour, such as high-volume, cross-class filings with no genuine intent to use, or the use of registered marks to obstruct competitors, amounts to an unfair competitive strategy. Second, liability now extends beyond the registrants themselves: trademark agencies and affiliated entities may be held liable where they knowingly facilitate or participate in bad-faith filing schemes. Third, courts will conduct a holistic evidence review, examining filing volume, timing, scope, relationships between parties and post-registration enforcement conduct to determine intent and competitive impact.
For international brand owners, the implications are tangible and encouraging. Administrative remedies are no longer the only line of defence, civil litigation can be proactive, and deterrence now extends beyond individual squatters to professional intermediaries. As our team in China puts it, the question is no longer whether enforcement is possible in China but how proactively it should be pursued.
For organisations considering how best to respond to bad‑faith trademark activity in China, please contact Ivy Liang from our IP team.
Read the full article.
5. No licence registration, no recovery of licensee losses
The Court of Appeal gave judgment in Lifestyle Equities v Frasers Group [2026] EWCA Civ 583 on 12 May 2026. The judgment has tightened the enforcement strategy and as a result costs risks loom.
Now is the time to audit your trade mark licences, protect recovery rights, and avoid limitation pitfalls!
Read the full article.
If you would like any guidance on the case, or what it may mean for you as a trade mark holder or a licensee, speak to John Coldham or a member of the team.
6. Same pack but less product sees Milka’s redesign deemed to be misleading
In a judgment reached in May 2026, the Regional Court of Bremen – Landgericht Bremen – held that Mondelez infringed the German Unfair Competition Act by reducing the weight of its Milka chocolate bars from 100g to 90g while retaining near-identical packaging.
The court’s reasoning is notable. It did not find the packaging misleading in isolation. But instead, deception arose from consumer expectation built over time with shoppers familiar with the product reasonably assumed that unchanged packaging still contained 100g. This remained true despite the 90g weight being disclosed on both the front and back of the wrapper.
To address the relative deception, the court imposed a positive disclosure obligation on the food giant. As a result, Mondelez must now include on pack notices on-pack that are clear, comprehensible and perceptible, sufficiently prominent to be noticed in a typical purchasing situation, and capable of correcting the overall impression created by the packaging.
The notice must also remain in place for four months, giving consumers time to internalise the reduced content. The court opted to leave the precise form of words and design to the company.
7. Penny wins key pricing case as UVP discounts fall outside German 30‑day rule
The Higher Regional Court of Cologne has overturned a lower court ruling and held that Penny’s use of discounts referenced to a manufacturer’s recommended retail price (UVP) does not constitute a “price reduction” under the German Price Indication Regulation (PAngV). It means the retailer is not obliged to disclose the lowest price from the preceding 30 days. The court found that the rule is aimed at preventing artificial inflation of a retailer’s own prices – so-called Preisschaukelei – a risk that does not arise when comparing against a manufacturer’s price.
It also held that clear labelling as an item as “UVP” sufficiently informs consumers, rejecting claims of misleading advertising under the Unfair Competition Act (UWG). Given conflicting decisions, it has been confirmed an appeal is in-hand with further guidance anticipated.
8. “AI did it” is no defence as German court pins chatbot liability on operators
A significant ruling from the Higher Regional Court of Hamm made it clear that if a commercial chatbot misleads customers, the business is liable — even if the AI made it up.
In the case, a cosmetic clinic’s online chatbot falsely described its doctors using specialist titles that don’t exist under German law. Despite arguments that the system acted autonomously and was trained on accurate data, the court held the company was responsible.
It matters because chatbot outputs equate to company’s commercial statements. AI is not a third party — it’s a tool under direct control and the “black box” argument doesn’t hold because liability doesn’t disappear due to complexity. The decision clearly frames AI as an extension of the brand voice — with all the legal accountability that entails.
With an appeal now heading to Germany’s Federal Court of Justice, this could become a landmark precedent for AI in marketing and customer communications.
And…in the newspapers….:
9. UK IPO launches new guidance to help consumers spot fakes
The expansion of Britain’s second-hand fashion sector in recent years, has led to increased opportunities for organised counterfeiters on the market. According to research by the UK IPO, many consumers purchasing “second hand” goods online only realised that the product was counterfeit once it had arrived. The guidance alongside ongoing enforcement efforts aims to crack down on counterfeit operations across the UK and to guard the UK’s pre-loved fashion trade.
10. Drag queen Pattie Gonia fights trademark lawsuit by Patagonia
Climate activist and drag queen who performs as Pattie Gonia, urges Patagonia to drop the lawsuit where they are asking for $1 plus legal fees, to stop Pattie Gonia being registered as a trademark.
Patagonia claims Pattie Gonia’s application for merchandise bearing the words “PATTIE GONIA” competes “directly with the products and advocacy” upon which the firm built its brand. Pattie Gonia argues that they share values with Patagonia, having raised $3.7m (£2.7m) for environmental causes altogether.
Upcoming Brands Events:
Stay tuned…there are plenty of upcoming brands events:
| Date | Event |
| 02-Jun-26 | Brands and Designs ThinkHouse, Gowling WLG, 4 More Place, London |
| 22-Jun-26 – 25-Jun-26 | BIO International Convention, San Diego, CA. |
| 1-July-26 – 2-July-26 | 14th Brand Protection Excellence Forum, Milan, Italy. |
Come and see us at the Thinkhouse and at BIO events!
That is all for now. As always, if you would like to discuss any of the issues covered in this edition, please do not hesitate to get in touch with the team.
About the author(s)
Khemi Salhan
Khemi provides strategic, commercial advice to her clients on how to best protect, exploit and enforce their intellectual property rights.
In particular, Khemi focusses on brand, design and copyright matters. She is part of the UK IP team's award-winning practice, which has won MIP's UK Designs Firm of the Year for an unprecedented four years in a row.
Khemi works on a wide range of matters for brands and designs clients including global portfolio management and enforcement, project management, strategic advice, trademark clearance, and high court litigation.
Nevertheless, Khemi understands that often multiple IP rights are at play when dealing with matters. Her broad experience helps her to provide comprehensive support to her clients.
Freya Jamieson
Freya is a Trainee in Gowling WLG's Birmingham office. She is currently in her third seat of her training contract working with both the Pensions team and the Employment team.
During her first year as a trainee, Freya worked in Housing Development and Regeneration, and in Commercial Litigation. Freya worked closely with the Cyber Security team in Commercial Litigation and developed an interest in the advancing field of Quantum Computing.
