IP STARS trademark rankings to be revealed

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

IP STARS trademark rankings to be revealed

TMrankings.png

Managing IP gives a taster of the numbers behind this year’s IP STARS trademark rankings, and looks back at our 2025 award winners

IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, is to reveal its latest rankings for trademark work at the end of this month, including which firms are on the up.

The release will also include the IP Stars list (excluding the Rising Stars and Corporate Stars) and the Top 250 Women in IP list for 2025.

Our research and rankings team has been busy preparing for the latest release, and Managing IP can now reveal some of the key numbers behind this year’s trademark firm rankings.

The release, which will be published on May 30, will be keenly awaited by many firms.

Some of those firms will be meeting current and prospective clients during the International Trademark Association Annual Meeting, which is taking place in San Diego this week.

Number crunching

Across all jurisdictions, more than 900 firms have been ranked for their trademark expertise this year. Within that, 59 jurisdictions are covered, including the US and eight individual states.

TMranks600x400@4x.png

The figures mark a step up from last year, when around 880 firms in 51 jurisdictions were ranked.

We have ranking categories for both trademark disputes and trademark prosecution, covering 35 jurisdictions. This number also includes three US states and the Benelux region, which comprises Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.

We will also publish domestic and foreign firm rankings in China and Japan.

In 13 jurisdictions, including the UK, Germany, and Australia, we will publish rankings for law firms as well as for patent and trademark attorney firms.

For the remaining jurisdictions, IP STARS provides a general trademark ranking table.

Who’s up, and who’s down

With firms eager to see if they have climbed the league tables and how they fared compared to 2024, Managing IP can reveal some key numbers.

In the US, two firms have been upgraded, and there are five new entrants. Five firms have been removed from the rankings, and two have been downgraded.

MIP US-changes table-May 2025_ (002).png

Across the Americas region (excluding the US), two firms have been upgraded, five downgraded, and two removed. In total, there are 10 new entrants.

MIP Americas changes table-May 2025_ UPDATE.png

In EMEA, 49 firms have been upgraded this time around, with 54 new firms added. In total, 39 firms have been downgraded and 29 removed.

Meanwhile, in China, there have been two upgrades, four new additions, eight removals and eight downgrades.

How to get noticed

Firms can partake in the research process by completing submission forms that explain the matters they've worked on and by providing a list of client referees.

The research team implements a thorough process before moving firms up or down.

Firms can give themselves the best chance to climb the rankings by consistently providing good submissions for each practice area they want to be ranked in.

Individual practitioners can still be ranked even if their firms don't make the cut.

Last year, Managing IP provided some tips on how firms can get themselves noticed.

All the rankings will be available on the IP STARS website, where readers can also find this year’s release timeline.

Awards recognition

Our rankings are not the only way Managing IP recognises firms and practitioners. As many practitioners will be aware, we also hold our annual awards ceremonies for EMEA, the Americas, and Asia-Pacific.

Across our EMEA and Americas ceremonies, which took place in April, we handed out more than 60 awards for trademark-related work.

In EMEA, our ceremony on April 10 recognised firms including Fencer (Trademark Disputes) in Belgium, Laine IP for Trademark Prosecution in Finland, and Haseltine Lake Kempner in the UK, which picked up the award for Trademark Disputes (Patent & Trademark Attorney Firms).

Across the Americas, several firms were awarded notable trademark victories. In the US, our Trademark Prosecution Firm of the Year was Cowan Liebowitz & Latman.

We also recognised several firms for trademark prosecution at the regional level in the US – with Mayer Brown winning Trademark Prosecution Firm of the Year for the Midwest, Arnold & Porter snagging Trademark Prosecution Firm of the Year for the Northeast, and Knobbe Martens earning Trademark Prosecution Firm of the Year for the West.

In Brazil, Gusmão & Labrunie won Firm of the Year for Trademark.

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