We are delighted to be sponsoring the MassChallenge UK Awards 2025 on Thursday 23 October, an event that will mark the closure of their reputable Accelerator Programme.
The evening will look to celebrate the 40 startups and small businesses that have been supported by the programme this year, which has enabled the participants to gain access to C-Level connections, office spaces in The Royal Docks, invaluable mentoring, and much more.
The impressive finalists this year include startups from a wide range of sectors such as AI, health tech, and sustainable food. Each of the businesses have already demonstrated remarkable potential, not only through their innovative ideas, but also through their ambition to create meaningful impact within their relevant industries.
MassChallenge UK will be awarding a total of £20k in cash prizes throughout the event, reflecting their commitment to supporting the startup ecosytem in a way that is significant and meaningful. In this way, the awards are a great opportunity for attendees to gain both recognition and valuable financial support.
Partners Paul Cozens, Andrea McShane, Max Thoma, and Managing Associate Adam Gilbertson will all be attending the ceremony and presenting awards, recognising the achievements of some of the standout finalists.
As a partner of MassChallenge UK, we strongly look forward to celebrating the successes of the growing startups throughout the evening, and we are excited to see what the future holds for each of them as they continue to grow.
To sign up for the event, click the link here.
Find out more about MassChallenge UK here.
To mark Black History Month, we were delighted to welcome Romain Muhammad, CEO of Diversify World, to give an online talk to our Mathys & Squire team.
Romain Muhammad is a public speaker, DEI expert, and recruitment specialist who has over 15 years of experience in corporate leadership. His mission is to encourage more diverse and inclusive work places, which can often be achieved through increased awareness and education. He focuses on topics such as systemic inequality, privilege and anti-racism, which contributes to improved work environments and helps to make meaningful change.
He is the founder and CEO of Diversify World, a company that looks to support underrepresented communities within the workforce through their services of recruitment, consulting, learning and development, and research. Through the Diversify World, Romain works to help organisations ensure they are maintaining a fair and supportive working culture and ensure that talented candidates from marginalised communities do not face barriers to employment.
His impressive collection of awards includes being named in the Emerald Network Top 100 Inspiring Next Generation Muslims 2024 list, as well as being the Top 50 Most Influential Muslim in Europe Winner 2023. He has also been awarded an Aziz Foundation Scholarship and an Honorary fellowship at the Royal Historical society, acting as further evidence to his great work and knowledge. He has also acted as a representative for marginalised communities on multiple occasions and holds a widely recognised reputation.
In his talk, ‘Redefining Narratives’, Romain spoke about the misconceptions regarding Black history and identity, specifically touching on how the UK media and education system has misinformed many of us on the reality of Britain’s history. Through numerous historical examples, such as artefacts and artworks, Romain demonstrated how diversity in Britain was evident centuries before we were taught, directly challenging these mainstream perceptions. It was a truly insightful talk, and our staff were very much appreciative for his time and learnt a lot from the session.
Click here to read more about our Diversity and Inclusion policies.
We are delighted to announce that we have maintained our ranking in the Chambers and Partners 2026 guide, marking our 15th year being recognised in the directory.
The 2026 edition of the Chambers and Partners UK Legal Guide highlights some of the most highly regarded law firms and legal professionals across the country. Each year, the guide is the result of an in-depth research process, during which analysts conduct investigations and hold one-on-one interviews to gather comprehensive insights into various areas of law.
The guide included the following testimonials for Mathys & Squire:
“The team at Mathys & Squire have deep scientific understanding of the biotech sector. They operate as true strategic partners who grasp the scientific nuances of our innovations.”
“Mathys & Squire have people who have a strong grasp of the engineering aspects of our product.”
“M&S have consistently provided the highest quality service and have worked extremely closely with all levels of our organisation.”
Amongst the team, Partner Martin Maclean has also been ranked as a Band 1 Patent Attorney, with the following testimonials:
“Martin always goes above and beyond and provides the best advice.”
“His client service is consistently outstanding. He is responsive, thoughtful and highly attuned to the fast-paced and often unpredictable nature of startup life.”
For more information on the Mathys & Squire rankings, visit the Chambers and Partners website here.
Partner Harry Rowe and Trainee Trade Mark Attorney Tanya Rahman have been featured in Practical Law with their article, ‘Trade mark genuine use: “use it or lose it” Brexit deadline’.
In the article, they highlight the revocation risk for UK and EU trade marks following the upcoming deadline of 31 December 2025, providing vital guidance for reviewing trade mark portfolios, collating evidence of genuine use of trade mark registrations, to mitigate the risk of loss of rights.
This article first appeared in the October 2025 edition of PLC Magazine.
Both UK trade marks and EU trade marks (EUTMs) become vulnerable to applications for revocation on the ground of non-use unless they have been put to genuine use for a continuous period of five years in the territory in which they were registered. Before Brexit, this requirement would be fulfilled for EUTMs by their use anywhere in the EU. After 11pm on 31 December 2020, known as IP completion day, any use in the UK of a EUTM, or a UK trade mark that was automatically “cloned” from an EUTM, does not count as use in the EU and, equally, any use in the EU does not count as use in the UK.
This situation has created an imminent revocation risk for trade mark owners, as the five-year period from IP completion day will conclude at 11pm on 31 December 2025. This will leave both UK- and EU-based businesses at risk of not being able to enforce their trade mark rights against third parties that use identical or similar marks in their relevant territories. It is imperative that businesses review their registered trade mark portfolios in advance of this upcoming deadline to mitigate the risk of revocation.
Genuine use
There are typically two instances in which a trade mark owner may need to provide evidence of genuine use of its trade mark registration:
In order to constitute genuine use, the trade mark must have been used in the course of trade in respect of the specific goods or services covered by the registration.
Territories. The trade mark must have been used in a real, commercial way, in the territory in which the mark is registered; that is, within the UK for UK registrations and within the EU for EU registrations. It is not sufficient to use the trade mark in a minimal or token manner to seek to circumvent the risk of revocation.
For EUTM registrations, it is not necessary to demonstrate genuine use in every individual EU member state. What matters is that the use is sufficient to establish or maintain a real commercial presence within the relevant market. Therefore, commercially meaningful use in a single member state could be sufficient to qualify as genuine use across the entire EU.
Evidence of commercial use. There must be a clear and consistent chain of evidence demonstrating actual commercial use of the trade mark in connection with the specific goods or services covered by the registration (see box “Documenting genuine use”). However, genuine use is fact-specific and depends on the nature of the goods or services and the relevant market. In some cases, particularly where the goods or services are specialised, a short period of use or limited sales numbers may still constitute genuine use. The extent to which the mark has been used will be considered by reference to the market size of the relevant goods and services to determine whether that use was sufficient for the registrant to have acquired a market share.
Burden of proof. Where non-use is alleged, the burden is on the trade mark owner to demonstrate either genuine use of the trade mark or valid reasons for its non-use. These reasons must be due to exceptional circumstances that are beyond the owner’s control, such as delays caused by regulatory issues.
Variation of form. To best demonstrate the genuine use of a trade mark, it is recommended that the mark is used in the exact form in which it is registered. However, as brands evolve, updates to the visual presentation of a mark are common. Minor changes, such as modernising the design or refreshing the logo, may still be acceptable as long as they do not alter the overall distinctive character of the original registered trade mark. These variations can still constitute genuine use provided that the essential identity of the trade mark remains intact.
Earlier marks. The analysis of genuine use extends to all goods or services that are relied on in proceedings or are targeted by a revocation action. However, both the UK Intellectual Property Office and the EU Intellectual Property Office recognise that where a likelihood of confusion, or the continued validity of the registration, can be established based on only some of the earlier protected goods or services, it may be unnecessary to assess use across the entire specifications.
Subcategories. In practice, if genuine use is demonstrated for goods or services that are clearly identical or similar to those covered by the contested application, or where the revocation action only targets part of the specification, this may be sufficient to support the opposition or maintain the registration. However, evidence of use in respect of only a subcategory of a broader term, such as use in respect of video game software when the term “computer software” is covered, would likely lead to the registration only being considered to have been used for that particular subcategory.
Authorised third-party use. Use of the registered trade mark by a third party, with the owner’s consent, is deemed to constitute use by the owner. Importantly, this consent must have been given before the use took place. A common example of authorised third-party use is that made by licensees. Similarly, use by companies that are economically connected to the trade mark owner, such as subsidiaries or affiliates, may also qualify as genuine use, as long as the use is authorised. Where goods are manufactured by, or under the control of, the trade mark owner and then placed on the market by distributors, whether at wholesale or retail level, this is also generally recognised as genuine use of the registered mark.
Failure to adequately document genuine use can leave registrations vulnerable to revocation. However, proving genuine use of a trade mark presents practical challenges, especially in gathering and organising sufficient evidence to satisfy legal requirements. Trade mark owners should:
Post-Brexit cloning
Before Brexit, the scope of protection of an EUTM registration extended to the (then) 28 member states, including the UK. IP completion day marked the end of the 11-month Brexit transition period during which the UK remained subject to EU regulations. After IP completion day, EUTM registrations no longer offered protection in the UK. However, Article 54 of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement allowed for EUTMs to become “comparable” UK trade marks.
To address this change, the Trade Marks (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/269) inserted a new section 52A and paragraph 1 of Schedule 2A into the TMA, which provided that EUTMs registered before 1 January 2021 would be treated as comparable UK registered trade marks from IP completion day; that is, they would be automatically “cloned”. These comparable UK trade marks maintained the same filing date, priority and seniority as the original EUTM registration, thereby preserving existing rights in the UK without requiring re-examination or refiling.
As a result, trade mark protection became split between the two jurisdictions, requiring efforts to separately maintain enforceable rights.
Genuine use after Brexit
Before Brexit, using an EUTM in the UK generally constituted genuine use of the EU registration. However, since IP completion day, the use of a comparable UK trade mark in the EU no longer qualifies as use of the UK registration. Likewise, only use within the EU now qualifies as genuine use of an EU registration. This means that:
Actions for businesses
Trade mark owners should review their trade mark portfolios ahead of the 31 December 2025 deadline and assess whether the use of their comparable UK trade marks and EUTMs still aligns with their current business strategy, and whether that use is likely to be considered to have been genuine.
It is essential that businesses carefully evaluate whether retaining the comparable UK registrations or EUTMs continues to be both necessary and suitable for their business, which involves assessing:
By conducting this review, owners can make informed decisions to optimise their trade mark portfolios. Where trade marks have not been used for certain goods or services in the UK or the EU, or if a business has rebranded and the trade mark is no longer used in a way that corresponds to the original registration, particularly where the change affects the distinctive character of the original mark, it may be advisable to file new trade mark applications. However, these filings should be managed carefully to avoid being perceived as “evergreening”, that is, submitted in bad faith solely to bypass the requirement to prove genuine use.
The Enlarged Board of Appeal has recently confirmed in G 2/24 that, after all appeals are withdrawn, appeal proceedings are terminated – even if an intervention is filed during the appeal. A party who intervenes only on appeal does not have the right to continue proceedings after the appeal is withdrawn.
The referring Board of Appeal in T 1286/23 sought clarification with the following question:
“After withdrawal of all appeals, may the proceedings be continued with a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings? In particular, may the third party acquire an appellant status corresponding to the status of a person entitled to appeal within the meaning of Article 107, first sentence, EPC?”
Background – Interventions at the EPO
Under Article 105 EPC, a third party that is sued for patent infringement may intervene in EPO opposition proceedings – even after the normal 9 month opposition window – provided that the intervention is filed whilst opposition proceedings are pending (or a subsequent appeal is pending). This allows the third party to bring new objections and evidence into the opposition.
The Decision – G 2/24
The Enlarged Board considered the situation where an intervention was filed during appeal proceedings following opposition and then all appeals are withdrawn.
G 2/24 confirms an earlier decision in G 3/04, deciding that such an intervener could not then continue with the proceedings. The Board that referred the question in G 2/24 questioned this approach and indicated an intention to deviate from G 3/04. However, in G 2/24, the Enlarged Board concludes that the legal situation has not changed substantively since G 3/04 in respect of the relevant provisions, and that the conclusion given in that decision still applies.
The Enlarged Board confirms that an appeal is a judicial review of the decision under appeal and is not a mere continuation of opposition proceedings. The principle of party disposition is also reiterated, in that the party has the right to withdraw an appeal (and the Board itself has no right to continue). Under Article 107 EPC, an appeal can only be filed by a party to the original proceedings that is adversely affected by the decision.
This reasoning led the Enlarged Board to decide that the intervener did not have the status of appellant and did not have further rights beyond a non-appealing party in respect of continuing proceedings.
As a result, if the sole appeal is withdrawn (or, should there be multiple appellants, then if all appeals are withdrawn), an intervener that only files an intervention on appeal does not have the right to continue with the proceedings.
Strategic Implications
G 2/24 gives patent proprietors more control over appeal outcomes when they are the sole appellant. For example, if an intervention on appeal raises new issues, the proprietor may opt to withdraw the appeal if they are the sole appellant. With the appeal terminating, this may allow the proprietor to fall back on an amended form of the patent maintained after opposition.
From the intervener’s perspective, it may be more beneficial to intervene in opposition proceedings rather than only on appeal. Whilst the ability to intervene will be determined by the proprietor bringing infringement proceedings, the third party may pre-emptively file an opposition in the first place (which may be filed anonymously).
In any case, intervening on appeal may still be a useful tool. For example, this may force the proprietor to withdraw the appeal and limit the patent to narrower claims.
G 2/24 therefore provides legal certainty confirming that interveners on appeal cannot continue with appeal proceedings once all appeals are withdrawn. This has implications for strategic decision-making in both opposing and defending patents at the EPO.
If you have any questions about your opposition strategy, please contact a member of our team.
We are delighted to announce that Partners Edd Cavanna, Max Thoma and Harry Rowe have been named as 2025 Rising Stars.
The Managing IP Rising Stars guide recognises leading intellectual property practitioners across more than 50 jurisdictions and a wide range of IP practice areas. This prestigious list highlights professionals who are making significant contributions to the field and showing strong potential for future leadership in the industry.
Each year, Managing IP conducts extensive research to compile its rankings, drawing on feedback from IP practitioners, firms, and clients. The process includes detailed surveys, interviews, and an independent analysis of publicly available information, ensuring that the rankings are rigorous and impartial.
Managing IP identifies Rising Stars who have demonstrated exceptional work within their firms and in the broader IP landscape. Being named a Rising Star is a mark of recognition for consistent, high-quality performance and is considered a notable achievement.
For more information on the Mathys & Squire rankings, visit the IP Stars website here.
We are delighted to announce that Mathys & Squire has been commended in the 2026 edition of The Legal 500 in both PATMA: Patent Attorneys and PATMA: Trade Mark Attorneys categories.
Patent Partners Chris Hamer, Alan MacDougall, Martin MacLean, Paul Cozens, Andrea McShane, Dani Kramer, Philippa Griffin, James Wilding, Sean Leach, James Pitchford, Andrew White and Managing Associate Oliver Parish are all featured in the 2026 edition of the directory.
Mathys & Squire’s trade mark team also received recognition in the directory. From our trade mark practice, Partners Rebecca Tew and Harry Rowe, Gary Johnston, and Consultant Margaret Arnott have been featured in the 2026 edition.
The firm received glowing testimonials for its patent and trade mark practices:
‘The Mathys team is easy and a joy to work with. They have the experience and requisite background to digest complex scientific matters and undertake well-done patent prosecution. I quite enjoy strategizing together and our collaborative efforts. They are pleasant and appropriate in communications, as well as responsive.’
‘Dani Kramer is a pleasure to work with. He is sharp, provides excellent and cost-effective advice and professional services.’
‘I work with the team around partner Sean Leach, who is exceptionally responsive and technically highly competent, as is his team. Pleasant to work with, always transparent, flexible – highly recommended.’
‘Sean Leach is highly skilled technically, a great communicator, an excellent patent attorney, very experienced and very responsive.’
‘Paul Cozens as a standout partner, and Oliver Parish has impressive technical knowledge.’
‘Fantastic team work from an absolutely top-notch team.’
‘Very skilled and knowledgeable.’
‘They are absolutely committed to working with the customer. James Pitchford is outstanding with his knowledge and ability to apply it to IP writing.’
‘They have exceptional experience and expertise.’
‘They are a go to firm for EPO consultation.’
For full details of our rankings in The Legal 500 2026 guide, please click here.
We extend our gratitude to all our clients and connections who participated in the research, and we extend our congratulations to our individual attorneys who have earned rankings in this year’s guide.
Partner Max Thoma has recently been featured in Law360 discussing the recent proposal by the UK Government to limit AI generated design applications in ‘Sweeping UK Reforms A Mixed Bag For Simplifying Designs’.
In the article, Max discusses how applicants have previously been able to apply for IP protection on design that have solely been created by AI. The new ruling would aim to prevent the UK design system becoming overwhelmed by a large number of applications, and ensure human-created designs do not have difficulty in being validly registered as a result.
Read the extended press release below.
The UK Government is proposing to change the law to prevent a flood of requests for the registration of completely AI generated designs says intellectual property (IP) law firm Mathys & Squire.
The proposal comes as part of a wide-ranging consultation launched by the Government on the intellectual property laws related to designs. Registering designs with the Intellectual Property Office can protect the appearance, shape or decoration of a product from being copied.
Unlike in other areas of intellectual property, UK design law contains provisions that allow protection for designs entirely generated by computer and without a human “author”.
Max Thoma, Partner, of intellectual property (IP) law firm Mathys & Squire comments: “The Government is worried by the possibility that the UK design system could be flooded with thousands of AI generated design applications. In theory AI tools churning out designs that are then registered could block new products from entering the market and make it more difficult for human-created designs to be validly registered.”
The consultation also proposes the introduction of an examination process for registered design applications in some circumstances. This would mean that some design applications will need to be reviewed and approved by the Intellectual Property Office.
Max Thoma says that this change is being proposed as some designs were being registered when they were invalid. In some cases businesses had been using those invalid design registrations to request the removal of a competitor’s product from online shopping sites.
There are number of other proposals in the consultation document including a proposal to make it easier to register animated designs.
Head of Trade Marks and Partner Claire Breheny has been featured in The Grocer providing insights on the growth of the non-alcoholic drinks industry in publication, ‘Non-alcoholic beer and cider trademarks on the increase’.
In the article, Claire provides commentary on how the preferences of the younger generation is a significant factor in the growth of the non-alcoholic drinks industry, and how recent trade mark applications is a direct indicator of this shift.
Read the extended press release below.
The number of new UK trade mark filings for non-alcoholic beer and cider surged 20% to 1003 from 833 and 19% to 515 from 433 respectively in the last two years*, says Mathys & Squire, the leading intellectual property law firm.
Mathys & Squire says that the number of new alcohol-free trademarks and brands being launched reflects the growing importance of the segment to the drinks industry.
In 2024, non-alcoholic beer trade marks accounted for 37% of all 2737 beer trade marks and 66% of all the 782 filings for ciders.
These figures show that non-alcoholic brands are on the rise as beverage companies continue to respond to demographic shifts around alcohol consumption.
This surge in non-alcoholic drinks reflects a decline in alcohol consumption by Generation Z (those born between 1997 and 2012), which has a higher proportion of individuals who prefer alcohol-free options.
Many young people in Generation Z are choosing non-alcoholic options to align more with their healthy lifestyles spurred on by celebrity influencers such as Spiderman actor Tom Holland.
Also, the UK’s growing diversity means many consumers abstain from alcohol for cultural or religious reasons. These lifestyle and demographic shifts are increasing demand for alcohol-free beers and ciders.
People often choose non-alcoholic beers and ciders, as opposed to standard soft drinks, as they allow them to socialise with others who are drinking alcohol without feeling excluded.
Beverage companies are innovating in the non-alcoholic sector to meet this new demand and protect profit margins amid slower growth in the alcoholic beverage market. In the last two years, alcoholic beer and cider trade mark filings grew 7% and 6%, respectively.
Claire Breheny, Head of Trade Marks at Mathys & Squire says: “The surge in trade marks for alcohol-free drinks underlines how quickly businesses are responding to the shift in consumer priorities. By drinking less alcohol, the younger generation are redefining the R&D and marketing spend of the drinks industry. You can see the impact of that in any supermarket.”
“Companies that fail to innovate in this emerging alcohol-free space fear missing out on one of the fastest-growing areas of the industry.”
New 0.0% branding allowing big brewers to advertise at prime time
Leading brewers such as Heineken, Carlsberg, and Guinness have all launched 0.0% ranges. Alcohol-free drinks give these brewers access to prime-time advertising and sports sponsorships that are off-limits to alcoholic products under current advertising rules.
Retailers and hospitality venues have responded to the alcohol-free surge by expanding shelf space and boosting visibility for alcohol-free products in stores, bars and restaurants.
Adds Claire Breheny: “The surge in trade mark filings suggest where the market is heading.”
We are delighted to announce our partnership with MassChallenge UK, a global network for startups and innovators. Through this collaboration, we will provide our intellectual property expertise to assist with the development of patent strategies for early-stage businesses.
MassChallenge UK is an international zero-equity startup accelerator, enabling businesses to make a meaningful impact in their industries. Our partnership will bring our specialist knowledge to the impressive network of entrepreneurs at MassChallenge UK, helping to foster innovation and support the startup ecosystem.
Through our involvement with MassChallenge UK, we will encourage the growth and development of each business through vital intellectual property advice, helping founders to avoid common IP pitfalls and create strong foundations for long-term value creation.
We will deliver tailored workshops, provide 1:1 guidance for specific patent-related challenges across a diverse range of sectors, and, beyond individual support, offer thought leadership and strategic insights to the wider MCUK community.
Partner Paul Cozens said: “We’re delighted to be supporting MassChallenge UK and its inspiring cohort of founders. Protecting and leveraging intellectual property is essential to long-term innovation, and we’re proud to help startups build resilient businesses underpinned by strong legal foundations.”
David Kinsella, Managing Director at MassChallenge UK, added: “We’ve seen firsthand how crucial IP understanding is for early-stage startups. This partnership with Mathys & Squire brings invaluable expertise into our programme, enabling our founders to make confident, informed decisions about their innovations and the impact they’re creating.”
Find out more about the partnership on their website here.
