UK: The UK, Brexit and IP law

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: The UK, Brexit and IP law

On February 22 2016, the prime minister announced a referendum on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, to take place on June 23 2016. In treatment typical of the UK press, this has been christened Brexit: a term rapidly accepted into general parlance within the UK but, understandably, not outside.

This announcement has triggered extended, heated debate across all sections of society, with topics ranging from immigration to bananas. In the interests of seeking some clarity, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys, the professional bodies for UK patent and trade mark attorneys, have issued analyses of the possible outcomes.

A vote in favour of remaining in the EU maintains the status quo, but should the vote be to leave, the UK would no longer be bound by EU legislation, enabling it to change its IP laws. In that event, the EU trade mark (EUTM), Community registered design, Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court would cease to apply in the UK causing a possible mountain of requests to convert EUTMs to national registrations. The UK would remain a member of the European Patent Convention, but would no longer be part of the Select Committee meaning no say in any rule changes. Unregistered Community design rights would remain available if the disclosure of the design takes place within the EU. Supplementary protection certificates for medicinal and plant protection products would require amendments to the UK Patents Act to continue in the UK. Rights of audience at the European Patent Office would be retained for UK patent attorneys, but representation rights at the EU IPO would only be possible on joining the EEA.

As the UK would remain party to international treaties and their harmonising actions, national changes to the IP legislation would seem unlikely. Concurrently, the EU would have an indirect effect on the UK economy, but the UK less influence on that effect.

The prime minister indicated a two-year time period to negotiate arrangements for any exit, and transitional periods would certainly be required. At this stage, uncertainty prevails.

Chapman

Helga Chapman


Chapman + Co18 Staple GardensWinchester SO23 8SRUnited 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

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article