December 2025
Brands and Advertising
European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency publishes guidance on accurately profiling alleged IP infringers in China
On 30 October 2025, the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency published guidance highlighting that many alleged infringers in China are not traditional counterfeiters and require tailored enforcement strategies.
The guidance identifies common profiles, including former partners selling without authorisation or producing overruns, trade mark squatters holding Chinese registrations, parallel importers acting under exhaustion rules, local innovators with their own earlier rights, and opportunistic counterfeiters.
It explains that effective responses may involve contract enforcement, invalidation or non-use cancellation actions, careful assessment of parallel trade limits, evidence of independent innovation, and targeted administrative, civil or customs measures. The guidance emphasises the need to diagnose counterparties, verify chain of title and timing of rights in China, and align legal tactics with commercial leverage.
Find out more about key legal and practical issues to consider when tackling anti-counterfeiting in our Anti-counterfeiting Guide.
UK Court of Appeal dismisses appeal in Babek International Limited v Iceland Foods Limited
On 23 October 2025, the Court of Appeal issued a judgment dismissing Iceland Foods Limited’s appeal against the IPEC’s refusal to invalidate Babek International Limited’s comparable UK trade mark for a gold oval BABEK device.
The Court confirms the registrability of the mark under the 2009 framework, holding that it satisfies the first condition as a single sign and the second condition as being clearly and precisely represented, referencing assimilated CJEU case law including Sieckmann, Libertel, Heidelberger Bauchemie, Dyson, Hartwall and Red Bull.
The Court holds that the IPEC applied the wrong 'capacity to distinguish' test when assessing colour precision, but that error does not affect the outcome. The categorisation as a figurative mark, the pictorial representation and the written description must be read together, with none having precedence.
The written description is treated as a concise explanation of the pictorial representation, not a claim to multiple variants or hues. The Court rejects reliance on state-of-the-register examples and confirms no tolerance for unspecified hue variations within the protected sign.
Find out more about the background of this case from Aaron Wyness here.
EUIPO study on influencers and counterfeits
On 10 November 2025, the EUIPO published a study on how online creators understand and engage with intellectual property across the EU. The study covers 300 influencers active on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube from all 27 Member States.
It finds that:
92% earn revenue from content
while only 18% hold IP rights.
Among IP-owning influencers, 55% have their own brand and 33% run an online store, compared with 24% and 14% among non-IP owners.
The report indicates high levels of IP compliance. It states that:
94% avoided promoting counterfeit products
and 93% avoided pirated content
4–5% admitted promotion of infringing goods or content in the past 12 months.
It records that 96% of influencers under the study feel responsible for promotional impact, and 92% verify brand legitimacy. It notes that 48% see no impact on followers from discussing respect for IP, while one in six fear a reduction.
The study records that 51% use AI often or sometimes and highlights concerns about alteration and repurposing of work, competition from virtual influencers and possible IP infringement by AI outputs. It notes EUIPO training initiatives, the joint Influencer Legal Hub with the European Commission and a follow-up study planned within two years.
Find out more about key legal and practical issues to consider when tackling anti-counterfeiting in our Anti-counterfeiting Guide.
