UK Intellectual Property Law Evolves Amid Brexit and AI Challenges

International developments continue to shape intellectual property law in 2026, with UK courts increasingly confronted by disputes involving global brands and emerging technologies such as generative AI (GenAI). As AI tools become more pervasive, creative industries are actively litigating to protect their works from unauthorized use in training AI models.

A decade after the Brexit referendum, UK IP law exhibits both convergence with and divergence from EU legal regimes. Nina O’Sullivan, partner and head knowledge lawyer (contentious) at Mishcon de Reya, observes that while much of UK IP law remains rooted in EU legislation and case law, recent legislative changes have altered this foundation. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 eliminated key elements such as the supremacy of EU law and the Marleasing principle, which required UK courts to interpret domestic law in harmony with EU jurisprudence.

O’Sullivan explains that the removal of the Marleasing obligation has not caused an immediate split but has opened the door for divergence. This is evident in cases like Industrial Cleaning Equipment (Southampton) Ltd v Intelligent Cleaning Equipment Holdings Co Ltd [2023], where the Court of Appeal consciously departed from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) precedent on statutory acquiescence in trade mark law.

Peter Brownlow, partner at Bird & Bird, notes that although EU trade marks and designs no longer extend to the UK, much of the pre-Brexit harmonized law remains intact. Divergence in UK courts’ approach to European case law remains limited, with Industrial Cleaning Equipment standing out as a notable exception.

In that case, Lord Justice Arnold ruled that the five-year period for statutory acquiescence—preventing a trade mark owner from challenging a later registered mark—begins when the owner becomes aware of the infringing use, provided the later mark is registered.

Conversely, other UK decisions continue to align with EU frameworks. Iain Connor, consultant at Michelmores, highlights Lord Justice Arnold’s 2025 Court of Appeal judgment in Thatchers Cider Company Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd, which reversed a lower court ruling and found Aldi liable for trade mark infringement. Arnold applied principles from the landmark EU case L’Oréal SA v Bellure NV (Case C-487/07), concluding that Aldi unfairly capitalized on Thatchers’ brand reputation.

Bird & Bird partner Nick Aries emphasizes that despite Brexit limiting UK courts’ ability to grant pan-European injunctions, litigation activity remains robust. The UK market continues to be a critical venue for IP enforcement, requiring domestic proceedings even when parallel EU litigation occurs. Collaboration between UK and EU legal teams is increasingly common to navigate this dual-jurisdiction environment.

Looking ahead, O’Sullivan anticipates further divergence in legislation and policy, particularly concerning AI, copyright, design law, and online platform liability. UK and EU lawmakers are pursuing distinct approaches to these pressing issues.

Recent High Court rulings illustrate these trends. In Roadget Business Pte and Shein Distribution UK Ltd v Whaleco UK Limited [2026], the court dismissed Shein’s copyright infringement claims against Temu regarding product listing photographs uploaded by third-party merchants. Temu’s successful counterclaim for losses caused by interim injunctions further underscores the complexity of intermediary liability.

This contrasts with the Court of Appeal’s 2023 decision in Montres Breguet SA v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, which upheld Samsung’s liability for primary trade mark infringement related to third-party digital watch faces. The High Court subsequently ordered Samsung to pay $11.6 million (£8.7 million) in damages to the Swatch Group, affirming that rightsholders can enforce IP rights against online intermediaries under certain circumstances.

Another significant dispute, Entain Operations Ltd & Ors v Liquidity Trading Ltd & Ors [2026], involves allegations of trade mark and copyright infringement by gambling platforms. Entain claimed that Liquidity Trading improperly used its brand logos and website screenshots to promote services. While the court rejected the copyright claims, it allowed the trade mark infringement claims to proceed.

The Shein case also highlights the intersection of copyright and competition law, particularly regarding the use of website images. In September 2026, Mrs Justice Bacon granted Shein UK permission to appeal the copyright ruling, recognizing the case’s importance in defining intermediary platform liability. Temu’s counterclaim was transferred to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), with a multi-week trial scheduled for 2027.

Connor notes the growing role of the CAT in consumer-related cases that intersect with IP law, especially collective actions where individual claims may be uneconomical.

On the international stage, Daren Tang commenced his second six-year term as Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on 1 October 2026, signaling continuity in WIPO’s strategic priorities amid evolving global IP challenges.