Contact
Contact

We are delighted to announce two new Partners and two new Managing Associates.

Mathys & Squire is delighted to announce a new round of senior promotions to its London office.

Harry Rowe and Dylan Morgan have been appointed as Partners. Helen Springbett and Tom Bosworth have been promoted to Managing Associates.

These appointments recognise their valuable contributions and leadership across Mathys & Squire’s trade mark, design and patent teams.

Harry Rowe is appointed Partner in London

Harry has over a decade of legal expertise specialising in trade mark law issues facing multinational corporations and SMEs. He works across a range of sectors including financial services, life sciences and automotive. Harry has a proven track record handling disputes, prosecutions and enforcement, including litigation. He is a recommended lawyer in the latest edition of The Legal 500.

Dylan Morgan is appointed Partner in London

Dylan has considerable experience drafting and prosecuting UK and European patents, managing global portfolios, and advising on infringement, licensing and IP strategy. He was previously an engineer at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. Dylan holds a master’s degree from the University of Cambridge, specialising in aerospace engineering.

Helen Springbett is appointed Managing Associate in London

Helen has extensive experience in patents and designs, specialising in the physics, mechanical engineering and materials science sectors. She has a wealth of expertise in medical informatics and devices, mechanical devices and nanotechnology. Helen holds a PhD in materials science from the University of Cambridge, specialising in the characterisation of quantum dots.

Tom Bosworth is appointed Managing Associate in London

Tom has significant experience in patent drafting, prosecution, and EPO oppositions and appeals. He specialises in cell and gene therapy, vaccines, antibodies, and genomics technologies. He holds a PhD in cardiovascular sciences from the University of Manchester. Tom previously worked in the biotechnology industry prior to his PhD.

Martin MacLean, a Senior Equity Partner at Mathys & Squire, says: “These promotions have all been well earned. Harry, Dylan, Helen and Tom are incredibly talented attorneys whose drive and hard work are an immense asset to our firm.

“We take pride in nurturing and developing our talent, and all four have consistently delivered the highest-quality work to our clients. I’m fully confident they will continue developing their practice and enhancing their expertise.

“We are very excited to welcome Harry and Dylan into our Partnership. Both will help lead our firm on a strategic level and play a crucial role in our growth plans.”

This press release has been featured in Law360 and New Law Journal.

We are proud to announce the appointment of Lyle Ellis as head of Mathys & Squire Consulting, the consulting arm of our firm.

Lyle joins Mathys & Squire from KPMG Law, where he served as Senior Manager in the IP Advisory division, advising startups and multinational corporations on IP strategy and operational management.

Lyle brings over 20 years of extensive experience in intellectual property management, strategy, and advisory services. Prior to KPMG, Lyle had a distinguished career as a UK and European Patent Attorney in-house at Vodafone.

Mathys & Squire Consulting advises clients on how they can maximise value from the intellectual property they produce and own. Specialist IP services within that group include IP audits, outsourced IP management, advising on contracts and licenses, and IP valuations.

Lyle brings a deep background in legal and commercial IP strategy, including IP risk management, threat assessment and value maximisation to Mathys & Squire Consulting.

His proven expertise in developing and managing IP portfolios will contribute significantly to the firm’s growth and capabilities, enhancing its ability to provide clients with high-quality, strategic IP advice.

Alan MacDougall, a Senior Equity Partner at Mathys & Squire, says: “We are thrilled to welcome Lyle to the team. His unparalleled expertise in IP will strengthen our capabilities and accelerate our growth. His leadership will undoubtedly enhance our ability to provide exceptional service to clients.”

Lyle Ellis says: “I’m excited to join Mathys & Squire and work with its talented team of consultants and other IP specialists. Mathys & Squire has a fantastic reputation as a law firm and it is also doing some really innovative and important work in the IP consultancy field. I’m looking forward to working with the team to build on that growing track record.”

The Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued a decision confirming that the description and drawings shall always be consulted to interpret the claims when assessing the patentability  (i.e. novelty and inventiveness) of an invention.

In their decision on case G1/24, issued on 18th June 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal heard facts and arguments concerning a worrying divergence which had occurred in the case law, whereby questions of claim construction and interpretation had sometimes been made with reference to the description and drawings, and other times in isolation of the remainder of the specification. Oftentimes, this difference depended on the clarity of the claims, with it being generally agreed that the description and figures could be considered if the claims were unclear or ambiguous but potentially not otherwise.

In this new decision, the Enlarged Board have rejected any premise that the resources of the patent which are available to assist in interpreting the claims may depend on the clarity of the claims themselves, stating that: “To regard a claim as clear is in itself an act of interpretation, not a prerequisite to construction.” Thus, the decision of the Board fundamentally changes the impact of claim clarity on the assessment of claim construction, harmonising the approach for all claims.

The Board’s decision also serves to harmonise the approach of the EPO with that of the UPC and European national courts, with the Board confirming that their decision was consistent with recent decisions of the UPC, and acknowledging a need and desire for further harmonisation.

This decision is likely to be broadly welcomed by many users of the EPC due to the certainty it provides as to the scope of the patent teaching which may be relied upon for claim construction purposes. By bringing the EPO approach into greater conformity with that of the UPC and national courts, the EPO also increases its ability to grant and maintain robust patents. Alongside these benefits, care should be taken to consider closely the impact of any amendments or differences that may have arisen between the claims and the description or figures of an application to ensure that undesirable constructions are not arrived at which may impact upon the scope and/or patentability of the claims.

If you have any questions as to how this decision may impact on your IP strategy, please reach out to your usual contact at Mathys & Squire, or get in touch through a general enquiry and we would be happy to help.

Clean energy beamed down to Earth. Exotic semiconductors and novel pharmaceuticals manufactured in microgravity. A base on the moon. Asteroid mining. Satellite recycling. Data server farms in orbit. Space tourists.

A new horizon study Space: 2075, issued by the Royal Society, sets out a vision of potential developments in space over the next 50 years. These could be as consequential, the report says, as the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century or the digital revolution of the 20th. But as space
becomes increasingly commercialised, is the present patent system up to the task?

The state of the UK space industry

The UK space industry is worth over £16 billion annually and employs more than 45,000 people. Almost every year since 2000 has seen the incorporation of at least 50 new space-related companies in the UK.

That said, the UK could do better. The UK spends less on space than some similarly-sized nations – less as a % of GDP than France, Italy, Belgium, Germany, as well as even Switzerland and Norway. Attempts to spur the industry have had mixed results. The UK has established over a dozen space innovation clusters, but none of the seven UK spaceports first legislated for in 2018 have as yet resulted in a successful launch.

Meanwhile, for reasons both geopolitical and economic, international competition in the space sector is increasing. National pride, industrial and defence policies have led to approximately a dozen countries now having launch capability. At the same time, the cost of getting material into orbit has fallen. In the last decade, the cost of launching a 1kg payload into low-Earth orbit has fallen from around £15k to £1k. This has consequently lowered a major barrier for new entrants.

It is clear that the UK space industry needs a boost. And indeed, the Royal Society report identifies the need to stimulate the scale-up of UK space SMEs. One recommendation for achieving this is through increasing the confidence of the finance sector. For example, using technical means to reduce the risk of satellite collisions could reduce insurance costs.

What is missing from the report is a discussion of another form of incentive: patents. Investors looking to back a company in an innovation-driven industry such as space will be wanting to know whether they have sufficiently protected their intellectual property to ensure successful commercialisation.

Patent law and the impact of ‘space law’

Here on Earth, most countries of the industrialised world operate a well-established patent system, the foundations of which can be traced back to the Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property of 1883. Although patents are inherently territorial, which is to say they operate at a national level, various international agreements have sought to allow for some degree of interoperability.

However, patent law becomes less clear above the Kármán line, the 100km altitude widely accepted as the beginning of space. Part of the problem is a certain tension between terrestrial patent law and what might be termed ‘space law’, originating in a handful of international agreements drawn up in the 1960s and 70s. The idealistic tone of these early agreements, seeking to codify the peaceful exploration of space, can be seen in how they constrain property rights. The agreements prohibit national appropriation in an attempt to ensure space remains the “common heritage of mankind.”

This is not to say that ownership of IP in space is entirely impossible. Much of the concern of these treaties was the ownership of physical rather than intellectual property. In other words, whether a nation, corporation or individual could lay claim to a celestial body (generally, no). It has subsequently been argued that the treaty language is ambiguous. For example, it is unclear whether it would apply to processed material extracted from such bodies by mining activities.

Who owns innovation beyond Earth?

There is potential for applying ostensibly Earth-bound laws, including those directed to intellectual property, in space. The potential arises from the way the Outer Space treaty (1967) and the registration Convention (1965) allow for jurisdiction over an object launched into space or on a celestial body to reside with the state which launches the body or the state from which the body is launched. Some later agreements, typically multilateral ones in respect of specific endeavours, acknowledge jurisdiction over IP more directly. For example, the ISS agreement (1998) includes specific provisions regarding protection of IP on the international space station, assigning jurisdiction and territory of each station module according to its state of origin. Others, such as the Artemis Accords (2020), merely acknowledge the need for relevant IP provisions without providing any further legal structure.

At present, in much the same way as an “international patent” does not exist, neither are there any provisions for – or immediate prospects of – a “space patent.” And while some countries, notably the US, have explicitly sought to extend the coverage of their national patent law to inventions made in space, many others including the UK have no such provision. This could arguably lead to the situation of a space object being considered to be in the jurisdiction of the UK by virtue of being launched from the UK, yet outside the territorial scope of UK patent law.

How can space innovations be best protected?

The applicability of patent law in orbit (or beyond) remains untested and proving infringement in space is unlikely to be straightforward. In the absence of specific contractual agreement, the best option at present appears to be, rather ironically, to aim primarily for terrestrial protection i.e. to seek a patent monopoly that would be infringed on Earth.

To that end, a careful analysis of what activities are being conducted on Earth needs to be undertaken. And for a product being made in orbit, where it is to be returned to on Earth.

The patent filing strategy also requires careful consideration, not least because territorial decisions made relatively early in the patenting process become locked-in for the duration. This requires due diligence to identify competitors: where relevant space objects are registered (the ‘flag of convenience’ issue) and launch locations both present and future.

So, can the present patent system cope with potential developments in space over the next 50 years? For the next short while, with careful handling, perhaps – but over the long term it seems some updates will be inevitable. The Industrial Revolution led to a substantial overhaul of patent laws; the digital revolution was accompanied by a flood of patent filings pushing the boundaries of patent laws. Would we expect the space revolution to be any different?

World Environment Day, held each year on 5 June and led by the United Nations, raises awareness of the threats facing our planet — and what we can do to address them.  In recognition of this day, we explore how the dream of limitless clean energy may be closer than we think.  While solar and wind have laid the foundation, newer technologies like hydrogen and nuclear fusion are gaining momentum — and at the heart of their progress lies innovation and intellectual property (IP).

The growing pressure on power

Global energy demand is soaring — driven by the rise of electric vehicles, energy-intensive manufacturing, and the rapid expansion of AI, data centres and digital infrastructure.  Electricity demand alone has grown at twice the rate of overall energy consumption over the past decade.  By 2030, it is projected to rise by 6,750 terawatt-hours — more than the current combined usage of the US and EU.  Data centres alone could account for 20% of that growth.

On top of this, electricity production remains the largest source of global CO₂ emissions.  Without a rapid shift to cleaner energy sources, meeting climate goals over the next five to twenty-five years will be all but impossible.

A green transition underway

Fortunately, change is in motion.  As we discussed in our 2025 Clean Tech Trends report, the renewable energy sector is accelerating.  Global leaders — from policymakers to scientists — are striving to decarbonise the energy system while also tackling energy poverty, aiming to deliver clean, affordable power for all.

Solar and wind continue to dominate patent filings, accounting for 58% and 19% of renewable energy patents filed in 2024, respectively (See adjacent graph; source).

But despite their success, intermittent supply and grid strain limit their scalability.  The question now is: what comes next?

Hydrogen: clean, flexible, scalable energy

Hydrogen is emerging as one of the most promising alternatives.  Hydrogen fuel cells produce electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen — emitting only water and heat.  These cells can be integrated into existing infrastructure, making them highly adaptable.

Beyond cutting emissions, hydrogen offers an opportunity to decentralise power generation, which could ease grid pressure and benefit regions lacking reliable solar or wind resources.  Companies like GeoPura argue that hydrogen could be the answer to both the AI energy boom and the electrification of transport, especially in the face of projected grid connection delays of up to 15 years.

Government and industry support is also growing.  A 2024 white paper from Bosch, Centrica, and Ceres outlined hydrogen’s role in decarbonising UK power through solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs). And yet, a challenge remains: while hydrogen fuel cells are green, the hydrogen used to power them often isn’t.  As of 2024, only around 1% of global hydrogen is produced via low-emission methods like electrolysis — the rest is derived from fossil fuels.  Scaling up ‘green hydrogen’ production will be crucial.

Momentum is building.  In 2024, the UK committed £2 billion to fund 11 commercial electrolytic hydrogen projects, attracting an additional £413 million in private investment.  In the US, Electric Hydrogen is delivering a 100MW electrolyser system capable of producing 45 tonnes of hydrogen per day with minimal emissions. According to the International Energy Association’s Global Hydrogen Review 2024, annual production of low-emissions hydrogen could reach 49 Mtpa H2 by 2030, up from 1 Mtpa H2 in 2024.

The pace of innovation is clear — but sustained progress requires more than technology alone.

Fusion energy: approaching a breakthrough?

Looking ahead, nuclear fusion could become the ultimate clean energy source.  By fusing light atomic nuclei — typically deuterium and tritium — fusion releases vast amounts of energy without carbon emissions.  One gram of fuel can generate the same energy as 20 tonnes of coal.  With deuterium abundantly available in seawater and new tritium breeding techniques in development (e.g. by the likes of Oxford Sigma), fusion promises safe, scalable, and virtually limitless power.

Compared to nuclear fission, fusion produces significantly less radioactive waste, with materials becoming safe in around 100 years — not thousands, and carries a much lower risk of catastrophic failure.

Once considered a far-off fantasy, fusion is now edging closer to reality.  In 2025, the EU unveiled its Competitiveness Compass, a roadmap that includes a new fusion strategy and public-private partnerships.  The ITER project in France continues to make progress, while the UK has committed £410 million to develop the STEP prototype fusion plant, expected to be operational in the 2040s.

Why intellectual property matters

As hydrogen and fusion technologies scale up, the role of intellectual property becomes more critical than ever.  Both fields face substantial barriers: long R&D timelines, high capital costs, and complex global supply chains.  In this environment, IP provides innovators with a strategic advantage — helping protect their ideas, attract investment and support market growth.

IP and access to funding

In the hydrogen sector, around half of international patent families in the period 2011-2020 related to hydrogen production technology, with most of the patents filed in 2020 shifting toward greener hydrogen production methods. 

It has been found recently that over 80% of late-stage venture capital funding in the hydrogen sector has gone to companies with existing patent applications. (See above graph; source)

In comparison, in the fusion space, innovators have commonly eschewed the pursuit of patents, believing commercial fusion to be too far off for a 20-year patent term to be relevant.  That logic is now shifting, particularly as US-based fusion firms with robust patent strategies dominate funding rounds.

IP and collaboration

IP does more than protect inventions — it creates the legal scaffolding that enables meaningful collaboration.  In frontier technologies like hydrogen and fusion, where development costs are high and technical expertise is globally dispersed, innovation increasingly happens across borders and between sectors.  Whether it’s a private company building on public R&D or international teams co-developing fusion reactors, clear and enforceable IP rights are essential to align incentives, manage shared risk and ensure fair returns. In this way, IP acts not as a barrier, but as a bridge — fostering the trust needed to turn bold ideas into shared progress.

IP and market confidence

In emerging clean energy sectors such as hydrogen and fusion, IP will serve as a key instrument of market confidence.  Hydrogen and fusion technologies are often capital-intensive, complex, and years away from profitability.  For investors, robust IP portfolios will provide assurance that a company’s innovations are both unique and defensible — that they are not merely speculative science projects, but investable propositions.  Patents thus have a key role in transforming R&D into tangible, protectable assets, offering a degree of certainty in an otherwise uncertain innovation landscape.  With greater certainty provided, IP in turn can help channel private capital into high-impact green technologies, accelerating their path from lab bench to power grid.

A tool for global impact

This World Environment Day, we find ourselves at a turning point.  Hydrogen and fusion have the potential to reshape the global energy landscape — but realising that promise will require coordinated innovation, investment and policy support.

IP will play a central role.  Not just as a tool for protection, but as a foundation for confidence, cooperation and commercialisation.  To fully unlock its potential, we must also embrace IP models that support responsible licensing, open innovation and global access.  If we succeed, IP may become one of our most powerful tools in the fight against climate change.

Managing IP has published its 2025 edition of the IP STARS legal directory. The directory acknowledges the most exceptional practitioners across a range of IP practice areas and more than 50 jurisdictions.

IP STARS is the leading specialist guide showcasing the legal practitioners best-equipped to handle contentious and non-contentious issues within intellectual property law. The research analysts determine the annual ranking using firm submissions, client interviews and online surveys.

We are delighted to announce that Partners Paul Cozens and Hazel Ford have been named as ‘Patent Stars.’ Out of our Trade Mark team, Partners Gary Johnston and Rebecca Tew have been recognised as ‘Trade Mark Stars.’ In addition, Consultant Partner Jane Clark and Partners Philippa Griffin, Nicholas Fox, David Hobson, Martin MacLean and Andrew White have been praised as ‘Notable Practitioners.’ Partner Laura Clews has also been newly featured as a ‘Notable Practitioner.’

The 2025 Rising Star rankings are due to be released in September 2025.

The firm is also pleased to have maintained its ranking ‘Trade mark prosecution’ in the 2025 directory. The firm rankings for ‘Patent prosecution’ will be announced at the end of the month.

For more information and to view the rankings in full, visit the IP STARS website here.

Harry Rowe’s commentary on the risk of European trade mark registrations being revoked after 31 December 2025, and how to prevent this, has been featured in an article by the CityAM and Law360.

Read the original article below.

Our Trade Marks team share their advice on managing your trade mark portfolio to avoid revocation after the changing regulations post-Brexit.

Following Brexit, EU registrations ceased to protect trade marks in the UK after “IP Completion Day” on 31 December 2020, the end of the 11-month period after 31 January 2020 during which the UK continued to be subject to EU rules. To address this, the UKIPO, under the Withdrawal Agreement Act, automatically created comparable (cloned) UK registrations for all EU trade marks registered before 1 January 2021.

This created a split in protection across jurisdictions, with a need for duplicated efforts to maintain enforceable trade mark rights. In the UK, a registered trade mark must be used in the UK within 5 years from the date of registration in respect of the goods/services it covers. An EU trade mark must be used in the EU within 5 years of its registration.

Scenarios in which a trade mark owner may need to prove use in the UK/EU:

  1. In response to a revocation action on the ground of non-use; and
  2. In response to a request for proof of use of a mark registered 5 years prior to the filing (or priority) date of an application being opposed on the basis of that earlier registration.

Before Brexit, use in the UK of a mark registered in the EU would typically constitute genuine use of an EU registration. Similarly, use in the EU before IP Completion Day is relevant when assessing use of a UK cloned right.

However, following Brexit, any use of a UK cloned mark in the EU after 31 December 2020 no longer counts as use of the UK registration. Similarly, only use of a mark within the EU (i.e. not the UK) would constitute genuine use of an EU registration for that mark.

As such, cloned UK registrations created due to Brexit may be at risk of revocation after 31 December 2025 if they have not been used prior to this date in the UK for the goods/services covered by the registration. Moreover, owners of UK cloned registrations will no longer be able to rely on use of the mark in the EU when proving use of those registrations in opposition proceedings directed to UK applications filed after 31 December 2025.

We therefore recommend that clients review their UK and EU trade mark portfolios to determine whether their registered marks have been used in the UK or EU, respectively.

How we can assist

Portfolio Review:

We can assess your UK and EU trade mark portfolios, and discuss with you the extent of use in relevant jurisdictions for all registered goods and services.

New Trade Mark Applications:

We can advise on the benefit of filing new trade mark applications where a registered mark has not been used for specific goods or services in either the UK or EU. Such advice would be provided on the basis that trade mark owners should mitigate the risk of new applications being considered to have been filed for the purposes of “evergreening”, i.e. filed for the purpose of circumventing the requirement for proving use of registrations. (See our article on Hasbro’s trade mark filing strategy which was ruled as an abuse of law: “No Get out of Jail Free Card for Hasbro.”).

Visit our dedicated trade mark page here to learn more and meet our team.

Ascending to Gold Tier this year, Mathys & Squire is thrilled to be ranked in the 2025 edition of IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals.

IAM is known for being one of the most important tools for ascertaining world-class private practice patent expertise. The directory identifies leading firms and individuals based on extensive qualitative research, from their abilities and market presence to the complexity of their work. Only those with exceptional skills and deep insights into patent matters are featured in the directory.

This year, our firm has been ranked in the gold tier for the first time. This reflects the positive feedback we have received from clients upon meeting their complex demands with deftness and efficiency.

We have been recognised as a “solid and reliable firm that is absolutely first class.” Our team has also been praised: “The team are not only helpful and attentive but also go above and beyond to meet client needs. They offer extensive legal and technical expertise, and possess a deep understanding of the entire spectrum of intellectual property. This enables them to provide comprehensive, strategic and high-quality advice.”

Recommended individuals

In addition to our firm ranking, thirteen Mathys & Squire attorneys have been recognised as “Recommended Individuals.” This continues their acclaim from last year.

Life Sciences & Chemistry team

IT & Engineering team

You can see our ranking on the IAM website here.

With artists seeking to expand their influence beyond music, trade mark protection plays an increasingly important role.

As record sales sink in the face of streaming and touring costs rise, musicians are more reliant on merchandise and offshoot brands as crucial revenue streams. Artist-branded fashion and beauty lines, as well as collaborations, are becoming powerful tools for income generation and audience engagement.

The value of trade marks for music artists

Gone are the days of simply listening to what is on the radio. As the competition among artists multiplies, artist branding has become vital in the battle to stand out. Whilst copyright protects music,  artists rely on trade mark protection to secure the exclusive rights to not only their name but album names, song titles, key lyrics and various other aspects of their personal brand.

This allows control over the sale of unauthorised merchandise or the use of an artist’s name in a way that would imply false endorsement, both of which could affect consumer and fanbase trust.

Trade mark protection can also be a key part of a PR strategy. We can see this with Taylor Swift and her push to re-record her back catalogue following a dispute with her previous record label that retained ownership of the original recordings. The musician released each re-recorded album using the moniker and registered trade mark “Taylor’s Version”. In doing so, she effectively distinguished between her new and original recordings, and encouraged fans to stream and purchase the former, from which she herself will profit.

In addition, as the industry shifts away from physical record sales and traditional revenue models, artists are looking to lend their name and likeness to products via licensing or side businesses. The massive success of Rihanna’s Fenty Beauty and Savage X Fenty lines, for example, is the reason for Rihanna’s billionaire status, rather than the royalties she receives from her music. Rihanna is now worth $1.4 billion, making her the richest female musician in the world.

Best practices for artist-brand collaborations

An artist’s trade marks must be clearly owned and licensed appropriately. This includes obtaining trade mark protection in relation to all goods and services of interest, including performances, entertainment services and merchandise lines, but also any separate goods for which the artists’ name and brand will be licensed. This allows for cleaner transactions and ensures the artist’s long-term control over their brand.

Collaborations, particularly between music and fashion brands, have flooded the market in recent years. Collaborations maximise audience reach and elevate brand visibility, but bringing two brands together can cause complications for intellectual property ownership. For brands and artists entering into commercial collaborations, clearly defined agreements are vital. A well-structured contract will specify the use of each party’s trademarks, ensuring that logos, names, and designs are used in line with brand guidelines.

The content of effective licensing agreements

The breakdown of Adidas and Kanye West’s ongoing partnership in 2022 is a stark reminder that brands must retain the ability to walk away if values no longer align. Following anti-semitic comments made by Kanye on Twitter, Adidas were able to terminate their agreements relating to the Yeezy line of shoes and other goods, leaving them with Yeezy stock worth over a billion. Adidas has since been selling the stock in batches and donating the proceeds to NGOs.

The risk of confusion and misrepresentation

Given the increasing prevalence of collaborations and licensing arrangements, there is also a need to factor this into a likelihood of confusion analysis in infringement and opposition matters, or the likelihood that a link will be made to a reputable trade mark.

For example, artists may find it easier to argue that the unauthorised use of their name or a similar name on entirely unrelated products would lead to confusion, harm to repute or a misrepresentation to consumers that they endorsed the product.

There have been several clashes over graphic t-shirts bearing a design that implies an artist’s endorsement. Back in 2013, Rihanna was successful in a passing off action against Topshop who used her image on a t-shirt. Despite it being acknowledged that there were no free-standing image rights in the UK, it was thought that this created a false impression of an endorsement or promotion.

Fast fashion brands are often being called out online for taking heavy inspiration from tour merchandise for their ranges, which can include terms and designs relating to an artist’s music. This explains why artists such as Taylor Swift have begun to expand trade mark portfolios to not just artist names, but terms and phrases that have meaning relative to their music and fan base.

What’s next: Fortnite and future fashion

The latest frontier between music and fashion is digital. Platforms like Fortnite are leading the charge in merging gaming, music and fashion into one immersive experience. Virtual concerts and artist avatars provide fans with interactive ways to engage with music—often dressed in digital skins that reflect the artist’s real-world outfits.

For example, Sabrina Carpenter recently made her debut as a playable character on Fortnite with outfits inspired by her tour wardrobe and animated dance moves choreographed to her in-game music. It is also possible for players to buy in-game Sabrina-inspired products, such as guitars, purses and a mic.

Like Taylor, Sabrina Carpenter has protected her brand through a series of trade mark registrations, ensuring that her name and branding are not used without her permission, and allowing this to be licensed out to Fortnite as part of this deal.

As music, fashion and the digital landscape become more interwoven, and new collaborative opportunities arise, artists, brand owners and intellectual property lawyers alike must remain aware of the implications for ownership and licensing arrangements, as well as the increased risk of disputes.

For World IP Day 2025, we published a series of articles exploring the interplay of the evolving music industry and intellectual property, including a journey through musical patents and the implications of using AI to generate music.

We are honoured to share that Mathys & Squire is a Gold sponsor of Life Sciences Patent Network (LSPN) 2025, taking place on May 6-7 in Boston. Partners Hazel Ford, Alexander Robinson, Philippa Griffin and Managing Associate Sarah Turp will be attending the event in person.

The Life Sciences IP Review is the principal online publication for professionals in the IP industry across the areas of pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and medical technology.

Every year, The Life Sciences IP Review organise LSPN to connect top patent experts and pioneers in innovative technology from around the globe. The event provides a pivotal opportunity to engage with industry leaders and discover cutting-edge advice in protecting and leveraging innovation in the fields of life sciences.

The program offers expert-led sessions and interactive panels, designed to share a wide range of expertise in the latest legal rulings, legislative changings and strategic approaches in the life sciences IP landscape. On 6 May, Partners Hazel Ford and Alex Robinson will be speaking about the changing landscape within the EPO and recent decisions on granted European patents from the newly formed UPC. They will be sharing their in-depth knowledge on how the approach of the EPO Boards of Appeal is shifting and the implications for a pan-European patent strategy.

You can learn more about the event here.