UK: Ensuring trade mark protection post Brexit

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

UK: Ensuring trade mark protection post Brexit

As the date of the UK's exit from the EU approaches, and given the proposed mirroring of registered EU rights on the UK Register but not pending applications, it is now particularly relevant to consider filing a UK application alongside any EU applications.

Filing a UK application requires the applicant name and address, any priority claim details, the mark to be filed (in jpeg form if a logo or device mark) and the specification of goods and/or services. No powers of attorney are required.

Applications are examined on absolute grounds. Applications are accepted for publication, providing they are sufficiently distinctive, not descriptive of the goods and/or services, not contrary to public policy or morality, do not deceive the public, do not consist exclusively of a shape resulting from the nature of the goods themselves, necessary for a technical result or add substantial value to the goods.

The date of publication triggers a two month period for any party to notify the applicant of an intention to oppose and/or file observations as to why the application should not be accepted. Filing of a Notice of Threatened Opposition at the UKIPO extends the opposition deadline by a further month, taking the total opposition period to three months. Should an opposition be filed, it is possible to enter into a cooling off period extending to a maximum of 18 months, subject to both parties' agreement. Alternatively, adversarial proceedings can be entered into where both parties are given a two month period to file submissions and evidence, with the applicant able to file reply submissions at request. A decision can either be taken on the papers or at a hearing, and this can be appealed to the appointed person as a final decision, or referred to the courts.

Assuming a straightforward process with no objections or oppositions, a UK registration can be achieved in as little as four months. It is also cost effective. The process can be completed for under £650 for one class where no objections or oppositions are raised. Equally, if an opposition is filed, the UKIPO offers a quick, effective and efficient route to resolution of the matter both in time and money. Official fees are low and award of costs set on a scale which is strictly adhered to.

The UK offers a quick, efficient, thorough and effective trade mark registration process which should be particularly relevant leading up to the UK's exit from the EU and well beyond.

dobson

Rebecca Dobson


Chapman IPKings Park House22 Kings Park RoadSouthampton SO15 2ATUnited KingdomTel: +44 1962 600 500  info@chapmanip.com  www.chapmanip.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article