The life sciences is a rapidly growing sector, tackling issues which closely impact humans. Advances in technology, particularly in the digital sphere, met with an evolving regulatory landscape are reshaping the industry, especially across medical treatments and drug discovery. AI and cutting-edge computer models are accelerating R&D, whilst the EU Pharma Package, agreed in December, marks the first time in over twenty years that there has been a major overhaul of the EU’s pharmaceutical rules.
As technology develops, the number of patent filings are growing in tandem. Crowded patent landscapes mean that a robust intellectual property strategy is key and there may be a shift in the way companies approach their IP in response to the rise in competition. Strong IP protection is particularly essential for life sciences companies. As the process of developing a product is so lengthy, owning IP adds value to a business before there is a concrete product or a source of revenue.
In this article, Associate Max Ziemann unpacks the innovation in medicine and pharmaceuticals which has been gathering momentum in the last few years and will shape the sector in 2026.
The UK Life Sciences sector
The UK life sciences sector has a solid history of world-class research, but to ensure commercial success alongside global competitors, the legal and policy landscape is just as integral as the science itself. As the sector undergoes transformation, the UK government must continue to encourage global investment and innovation.
The Life Sciences Sector Plan, published in July last year, shows the government’s commitment to making the UK a leader in life sciences. The plan covers action points such as building an advanced national health data platform and ensuring the MHRA streamlines regulation and market access.
The UK already has a robust IP regime with specialist IP courts, experienced judges and well-established case law. Looking forward to 2026 and beyond, expedited patent examination and patent term extensions may be the next step to fostering innovation.
Areas to watch
Advanced therapeutics
Innovative medical treatments addressing the root causes of diseases which involve the insertion of biological material into the body, such as cell therapy, or the modification of biological material in the body, such as gene editing, have made major leaps in recent years. This new approach to healthcare represents a clear shift towards personalised medicine, where treatment can be designed with each individual patient in mind. It is bringing us closer to curing some of mankind’s most devastating diseases.
For example, CAR-T therapy has already been successful in curing some forms of leukaemia and scientists are continuing to test its potential. Early clinical data suggests that CAR-T therapies could tackle solid tumours, which are notoriously difficult to treat due to their complex mix of cell types, and scientists are also looking beyond cancer into autoimmune disease. In October 2025, a patient in the UK with multiple sclerosis was the first to trial CAR-T therapy.
Evidently, cell therapy is showing no sign of slowing down, remaining a strong area of interest for investment, and we are likely to see many life-changing breakthroughs in the future. As pharmaceutical companies attempt to bring cell therapies into the mainstream, emerging methods, such as allogeneic as opposed to autologous therapies, may gain traction.
Multi-omics
Multi-omics signify another new frontier of precision medicine. Multi-omic data refers to the combination of information from genomics, epigenomics, proteomics, transcriptomics and metabolomics. The integration of this data can be harnessed to classify diseases, identify biomarkers and discover new drug targets.
Progress in computational models is enabling the rapid evolution and uptake of multi-omics. AI, for example, can efficiently mine huge sets of multi-omic data to identify novel drug targets. This will provide researchers with valuable insights into individual disease biology, informing future development of treatments.
Integration of AI into pharmaceuticals
Multi-omics is not the only area where AI can assist: the use of AI across biopharma R&D is not just a possibility anymore, but a core step. The ability of AI to scour vast databases, extract patterns and carry out predictive modelling is revolutionary in speeding up the drug discovery pipeline. AI can be harnessed at almost every stage from target identification to preclinical assessment.
At the start of this year, UK Basecamp Research shared their collaboration with Nvidia. AI models analysed their dataset of evolutionary information from more than a million designed potential new therapies. This resulted in the first demonstration of AI-designed enzymes that can perform precise large gene insertion in humans.
More and more, pharmaceutical companies are strengthening their AI capabilities through acquisitions and strategic partnerships. It is likely that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg of what AI can do when it comes to healthcare.
You can read our previous article on AI innovation in drug discovery here to learn more about how the integration of AI in pharmaceuticals means that, firstly, companies must consider their IP strategy and, secondly, the broader IP infrastructure must take the use of AI into account.
GLP-1
GLP-1-focused obesity biotechs constitute a huge market, estimated to generate more than $150bn in annual revenue by the early 2030s, and investment remained high in 2025.
Competition between leaders in the industry has already kicked off again in 2026. Novo Nordisk launched Wegovy in tablet form at the start of the year, marking a remarkable step for GLP-1 drugs. Originally self-administered with a weekly injection which had to be stored in the fridge, the oral alternative could make the drug more accessible for a larger group of people.
Keeping apace, Nimbus Therapeutics also announced that they have entered into a long-term licensing agreement with Eli Lilly. This partnership is driven by the goal of developing new oral treatments, as Novo Nordisk has done. They are also planning to use AI to help identify drug candidates, another example of AI’s new key role in drug development.
In addition, GLP-1RA is now attracting attention for purposes beyond tackling metabolic diseases. Clinical trials have shown that cardiometabolic and anti-obesity drugs could even slow down the process of ageing. Other trials are exploring the efficacy of GLP-1RA in specific diseases associated with old age, such as Alzheimer’s. Over the next few years, we may start to see the first wave of ‘longevity’ therapeutics: medication to increase both health span and lifespan.
3D bioprinting
Bioprinting is an exciting new application of 3D printing: the 3D printing of cellular structures from living cells. Its success unlocks many opportunities, such as the creation of tissue-like constructs for grants or scaffolds, modelling of human organs or 3D tumour models, and, beyond medicine, its use is being explored for novel food structures, such as in the alternative proteins sphere.
In March last year, scientists from Newcastle University unveiled a new 3D bio-printer that produces human-like tissue. This has the potential to revolutionise drug development, providing a more accurate alternative to testing on in-vitro cell cultures.
The possibility of printing cells which could actually be inserted into the human body is also being investigated. For example, scientists have printed insulin-producing human pancreas cells, bringing us closer to an off-the-shelf treatment for diabetes that could one day eliminate the need for insulin injections.
An IP perspective
Emerging trends in pharmaceuticals, and in particular New Chemical Entities, will inevitably require a robust IP strategy to be fully commercialised.
Even where developments do not relate to New Chemical Entities, various patent strategies exist to prolong the protection of pharmaceuticals. Second generation patents can be used to cover new medical indications, dosage regimens, methods of synthesis, innovative formulations, combination therapies, treatments of specific symptoms or sub-populations, etc. These tools are of great importance in the pharmaceutical industry, in particular where a large proportion of the original patent lifespan may have elapsed prior to market authorisation of the pharmaceutical.
The integration of AI systems into drug discovery presents a new question of the inventiveness of any intellectual property that arises. Inventions made with the assistance of artificial AI are increasingly facing objections on the grounds of obviousness/lack of inventive step. This means that Patent Offices may be increasingly taking the view that the bar for inventiveness has been raised and is not met by ‘routine’ use of AI systems. A change in policy from Patent Offices worldwide could reduce the value IP generating AI systems if such breakthroughs are no longer seen as suitably ‘inventive’.
The integration of AI systems into drug discovery also presents a new question of inventorship of any intellectual property that arises. The established case law at the UKIPO and the EPO is currently that AI system may not be named as an inventor on a patent (read more here). This means that the default position is that the person using the AI system is the inventor, from whom ownership rights are derived. However, AI companies are increasingly looking towards ‘performance based licencing’ models which could see them share in the financial success of new IP that was developed using their AI systems.
It seems that an AI system capable of producing this type of innovation may in of itself hold a far greater commercial value than the innovations it produces. This means that this system would also require an IP protection strategy. Increasingly, AI systems themselves as well as multi-omics-based approaches may face a trade-off between whether optimal protection is provided by patents and trade secrets. Patents directed towards these kinds of systems are typically not allowable in the UK or Europe, although methods exist for Applicants to avoid these restrictions. Trade secrets on the other hand may last indefinitely and do not run the risk of being denied by Patent Offices, but it is not clear how much value this would hold in such a fast-moving sector. For this reason it seems likely that a combination approach would be the optimum strategy for many innovators.
Emerging trends in life sciences, particularly in the way that research takes place, are fundamentally changing the way that IP protection is used. Value may be shifting from isolated molecules toward platforms, data, methods of use, and integrated digital systems, requiring more combined IP protection strategies.
Partner Nicholas Fox has been featured in ‘UK patent grants drop by 80% as digital upgrade hits processes’ in MLex.
The article explores the sharp decline in UK patent grants following the UK Intellectual Property Office’s rollout of its “One IPO” digital upgrade, which has temporarily disrupted patent granting. Data shows domestic patent grants fell by around 80% in the second half of 2025 as the new system was implemented.
Nicholas Fox commented that the drop is unlikely to significantly affect most UK businesses, as the majority of patents in force in the UK are granted via the European Patent Office, making the reduction in UK domestic grants relatively insignificant.
Read the article in full here.
We are happy to announce that Mathys & Squire is sponsoring the “Hard Tech Investment of the Year” award at the 2026 UKBAA Angel Investment Awards for the second year running. Mathys & Squire will also be part of the judging panel for this year’s nominations which span across 14 categories.
The UK Business Angels Association (UKBAA) is the national trade association for angel and early-stage investment, fostering a tight-knit community of investors. Their annual Angel Investment Awards, taking place on the 9th of July this year, celebrates the role of angel investors, crowd funders and early-stage VCs in driving innovation across the UK, as well as showcasing the businesses they support.
The “Hard Tech Investment of the Year” award showcases those pioneering in sectors such as health & life sciences, engineering and manufacturing, which require extensive R&D and capital. At Mathys & Squire, we are committed to supporting these purpose-led businesses and early-stage investors which are stretching the boundaries of technology.
Nominate someone you admire through their website here. Applications close on the 10th of April.
Find out more about the event and award nominations here.
You can learn more about the partnership between our Scaleup Quarter and the UKBAA here.
World Cancer Day, held each year on 4 February, highlights both the continuing impact of cancer and the remarkable pace of innovation in how it is treated.
Cancer is still the 2nd leading cause of death globally, with the disease causing many complications for treatment, such as its ability to spread throughout the body and the composite nature of tumours. However, there have been many recent advances which are providing hope for victims of cancer, from robotic surgery to advanced cell and gene therapies.
In honour of World Cancer Day, this article will showcase some of the cutting-edge innovations which have the potential to transform patients’ lives, improving accuracy and accessibility.
Innovation in oncology
Cell therapies
Cell therapies have fundamentally changed the cancer treatment landscape by harnessing the body’s own immune system to identify and destroy malignant cells. Among the most transformative developments is CAR-T (chimeric antigen receptor T-cell) therapy. CAR-T therapy has already proved successful in treating certain blood cancers and early clinical data suggests that CAR-T therapies could tackle solid tumours, which account for about 90% of all cancers and are notoriously difficult to treat due to their complex mix of cell types.
Next-generation cell therapies are showing a shift towards “off-the-shelf” treatments. This points towards a future where treatments can be produced and delivered at scale and to a much tighter timeframe, making them more accessible for patients. Mass-production is achieved through allogeneic (as opposed to autologous) sources, meaning the implanted and edited cells originate from a healthy donor rather than the patient.
In December, the New England Journal of Medicine released results of a trial in which patients received “universal” CAR-T cells. The cells were taken from a healthy donor and then genetically modified, generating a storable cache for cell therapy. The universal CAR-T cells showed promising results in treating an aggressive form of blood cancer, T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. As this cancer occurs because of abnormal T-cells, it is difficult to target with autologous T-cell therapy.
Scientists are also developing treatments with other types of cells, such as natural killer (NK) cells. NK cells can selectively attack abnormal cells, fighting cancer without triggering an extreme immune response. Advances in synthetic biology are making it possible to generate these cells using donated blood stem cells. Evidence suggests that one donor could potentially provide enough cells for thousands of treatments.
Antibodies and anti-drug conjugates
Antibody-based therapies remain a cornerstone of modern oncology. Monoclonal antibodies such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab and trastuzumab have become standard-of-care in multiple indications, validating decades of investment in immune checkpoint inhibition and targeted therapy, and illustrating how long-term patent protection has underpinned sustained development in this area.
Recently, the innovation landscape has focused more heavily on antibody-drug conjugates, addressing targets which were previously considered undruggable. ADCs can deliver chemotherapy agents directly to cancer cells, again improving the level of precision to minimise the side effects which come with cancer treatment.
Cancer surgery
Approaches to tackle cancer are not just limited to pharmaceuticals; some tumours can be extracted from the body through surgical procedures. However, surgery is high-risk, and factors such as the position or composition of a tumour makes surgery in some cases impossible.
New technologies such as robotic systems and laser devices could make operating on tumours in places with restricted access feasible. Lasers can destroy tumours precisely without damaging healthy tissue, whilst robotic devices can reach places which traditional surgical tools cannot.
Researchers at the University of Oxford have developed another way to improve accuracy in surgery: a fluorescent dye which highlights cancerous tissue, including tissue which is not detected by standard imaging. This makes it easier for surgeons to find and remove malignant tissue, whilst minimising unwanted damage.
AI and diagnostic procedures
Diagnostics are also becoming more accurate, as well as less invasive. For example, liquid biopsies are non-invasive and can be more informative compared to the traditional method of surgically removing a piece of tissue or a sample of cells from the body for diagnostic purposes. Thanks to technological advances, tumour DNA fragments can be detected in blood samples. Last year, the NHS was the first in the world to implement a new liquid biopsy test for patients with lung and breast cancer, enabling the delivery of more personalised and streamlined care.
AI is becoming a core tool in efficient and effective healthcare, and cancer diagnosis is no different. AI can be used to interpret X-ray, CT, MRI and PET imaging to flag subtle abnormalities early and with high precision. The NHS has launched trials exploring how AI can improve the breast screening system, and it has just been announced that they will also be trialling AI in lung cancer diagnosis – the cancer responsible for the most deaths in the UK.
The combination of AI and less invasive methods of detection has the potential to transform the way we spot cancer in patients, bringing us closer to instant and autonomous screening. This could lead to earlier discovery and, ultimately, better treatment and a lower death rate.
Patent protection in oncology
Innovation in oncology can be costly and time-intensive. Taking a clinical candidate from bench to bedside can take many years and requires substantial investment in research, trials, regulatory approval and manufacturing. Therefore, patent protection is therefore both for securing early investment and for later recouping the costs of developing new treatments.
Patenting a new cancer treatment
A common starting point for patent protection in oncology innovation is a new therapeutic agent. The precise scope of protection available will depend on what new data has been generated, and what is already known about the same or similar agents. In addition, innovators typically build a portfolio of patent applications around a single agent over time. Such applications may be directed to:
- Compositions of matter protecting the therapeutic agent itself, often with broad medical use claims where available. These applications usually provide the strongest protection.
- Further medical uses of the agent. As development progresses, the innovator may discover that the agent is effective in treating a different cancer that was not previously recognised. A new patent application directed to this new therapeutic use may be filed, even if the agent is already publicly known.
- Formulations that improve stability, delivery, tolerability or targeting of the agent.
- Dosage regimens protecting specific dosing schedules or administration protocols of the agent.
Taken together, these different types of patent applications can form a layered protection strategy around the therapeutic agent.
What else can be protected?
Focusing only on new therapeutic agents can risk overlooking other forms of patentable subject matter in oncology. For example, although diagnostic methods are excluded from patentability in some jurisdictions, this does not mean useful protection is unavailable. Instead, diagnostic methods often require more careful claim drafting, for example, by directing claims to in vitro methods. Similarly, while methods of surgically removing a tumour may not be patentable, the tools that enable the procedure are frequently AI-driven technologies, for example, in imaging analysis, which can also form part of a valuable patent portfolio if framed correctly.
Opposition and validity challenges
Given the commercial importance of oncology patents, European patents in this field are frequently subject to opposition at the EPO. The opposition procedure provides a centralised mechanism for third parties to challenge the validity of a patent within nine months of grant. The outcome can often turn on the quality of the technical and legal arguments advanced, and the manner in which the patent is amended and defended. Beyond this period, validity may still be challenged through national revocation actions or centrally before the Unified Patent Court (UPC).
Whilst World Cancer Day is a time to acknowledge the serious impact which cancer still has on many people’s lives, it also reminds us of the extraordinary progress across the oncology landscape. Innovation is reshaping cancer care in ways that were unimaginable only a decade ago, gradually improving outcomes for patients.
Patent protection will continue to play a pivotal role, shaping how discoveries are protected, developed and delivered to patients. As therapies and diagnostics become more complex and interconnected, thoughtful patent strategy will be essential to ensure that innovation translates into real-world impact for patients.
SpaceX is reportedly going public, in what may be one of the largest IPOs ever. What do we know about its patent portfolio? And what can we learn from its patent strategy?
Since its founding in 2002, SpaceX has become the world’s dominant space company. The competition, for now, is not even close. Founded with the aim of significantly decreasing the costs of launching into orbit, saved from bankruptcy by the timely securing of generous government contracts to supply the international Space Station, SpaceX has been a media fixture with dramatic innovations, including the reusable Falcon 9 launch vehicle and the ‘chopsticks’ landing of its successor, Starship. SpaceX now averages 2-3 launches every week; in 2025, it was responsible for 50% of all orbital launches worldwide, 80% of ones in the US. These figures seem only likely to increase in the near term as even competitors find themselves relying on SpaceX to launch their satellites.
Now its CEO, Elon Musk, is said to be pondering taking SpaceX public. With an estimated valuation which has surged in the last year from $400 billion to $800 billion and some think could even reach $1.5 trillion, it would be one of the largest IPOs in history. What the billions expected to be raised from the sale would be used for is anyone’s guess. Some speculations are developing data centres in space to support the incessant demands of AI, aligning Musk’s other ventures xAI and Tesla for an anticipated convergence of AI and robotics technologies, or perhaps space manufacturing, and the stated ultimate goal: Mars. The plans would no doubt be grand.
SpaceX’s patent portfolio
SpaceX’s patenting strategy is perhaps not what one might expect; its patent portfolio
proves to be almost as idiosyncratic as its founder.
What is formally the Space Exploration Technologies Corp has a portfolio of nearly 100 distinct patent families. However, for over a decade of initial development SpaceX was not pursuing patent protection at all. Whatever the truth about Musk’s oft-quoted quip at the time that patents were “for the weak”, this position has evidently changed.
Why the change? Starlink. Since first launching in 2019, the wholly-owned subsidiary, with its constellation of now over 9,000 satellites providing internet connectivity worldwide, has itself grown to a dominant position, being responsible for two-thirds of active Earth-orbiting satellites. Starlink has been critical in providing SpaceX with a steady source of income.
SpaceX’s patent filings now span various technologies relating to satellite communications, including antennas, printed circuitry, transmission systems and waveguides. This makes sense for technology implemented in widely available consumer products. There are even some design patents for the distinctive Starlink antennas. What is notably missing is any patent coverage for the launch systems themselves, whether for the rocket engines (Raptor, Draco), launch vehicles (Falcon, Starship) or spacecraft (Dragon).
A look at SpaceX’s competitors
SpaceX’s strategy is at odds with its launch start-up competitors, of which there are increasingly many. The burgeoning commercialisation of space has led to a flurry of space start-ups developing launch capability, at least two of which – Jeff Bezo’s Blue Origin and Rocket Lab – feature in the worldwide top-ten of launch providers (ULA, the United Launch Alliance, is actually a joint-venture between established aerospace giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing). Launching into orbit is no longer the exclusive provision of nation states.
When we compare the subject matter of patent filings, we find these competitors – Blue Origin in particular – are seeking patent protection for a broad range of launch-related technologies, including manufacturing, fluid systems and materials. Not so SpaceX, which has focused exclusively on Starlink.
Mapping SpaceX’s patents
Another curiosity is where SpaceX file for patents. As would be expected for a US-based company (and all SpaceX employees are required to be US citizens), initial patent applications are filed in the US. However, interest in patent rights beyond the US is very limited: only a dozen international applications, barely a third of the portfolio pursued elsewhere, essentially only in Germany and Taiwan. This is a highly geographically targeted patent filing strategy: protection for where there is relevant
The lack of patent protection beyond the US suggests perhaps some confidence at SpaceX that any non-US companies will not become commercial competitors within any realistic timescale, even allowing for the maximum 20-year patent term.
An evaluation of SpaceX’s patent strategy
While we can only speculate as to why SpaceX has avoided seeking patent protection for what might be considered its core technology, the lack of a comprehensive patent portfolio adds to the difficulty of assessing the long-term worth of SpaceX. In the near-term, Starlink appears to be more valuable on account of its steady income stream. Yet it is the launch capabilities which are the crown jewels and those appear to be unprotected by patents.
Admittedly, patents directed to the launch systems may be difficult to enforce, especially once launch has occurred and it becomes difficult to secure physical evidence of any infringement. Also, the applicability of patent law in space is not always clear. While the US has amended its patent law to supposedly extend to space, many other countries have not.
A more prosaic reason comes from another Musk quote, that he does not want to provide a “recipe book” for competitors, referencing China specifically; patent specifications require a full disclosure of the pertinent technical details.
Instead, SpaceX appears to protect its IP in launch technology via trade secrets. This comes with its own risks.
Although some SpaceX employees have over a decade of service, a demanding work schedule and culture differences (and despite financial incentives to stay and disincentives to leave) mean turnover rates for those with up to 5 years of experience are high. Employment contracts may have strict IP protections provisions, but know-how and experience may nevertheless simply walk out the door. SpaceX employees would be highly valuable elsewhere, including at legacy aerospace companies.
The spectre of industrial espionage also looms large, something of which SpaceX are evidently concerned: a Russian cosmonaut was recently removed from the SpaceX crew for allegedly photographing a rocket engine and other sensitive material with a smartphone.
The future of SpaceX
Imitation, the sincerest form of flattery, is now a realistic possibility. Several commercial competitors in China, such as LansSpace, have been testing launch vehicles which appear remarkably similar to those of SpaceX. The lack of formal IP protection there leaves everything open to copying.
Starlink, too, is not immune from competition. Others are sensing commercial opportunities; nation states do not want to become reliant on a single provider led by a mercurial CEO. Both are deploying constellations of their own: Amazon with its Kuiper and TeraWave; China (which blocks Starlink) has SpaceSail. Even Europe is getting in on the act with OneWeb. Such is the number of LEO satellites planned that there are genuine concerns that the Kessler Syndrome, where the amount of space debris that makes certain orbits unstable, will become a reality.
The risk to SpaceX’s dominance is clear. And there is form: Tesla is no longer the world’s largest electric vehicle company; BYD is.
Final thoughts
What can we conclude? That for a technology company patents are only one tool. It is entirely possible to operate with a hybrid approach: patents to protect income streams, especially if dependent on technology which is straightforward to reverse-engineer, geographically targeted at potential rival manufacturers; trade secrets for core technology which may be difficult to protect anyway.
There is another reading. SpaceX is sui generis. Whether its patent strategy can be used by other companies is unclear. Few companies can draw on the Musk celebrity which is an intrinsic part of the way SpaceX operates. But technology leads are not eternal; many once ubiquitous companies – Kodak, Blackberry, perhaps now Intel – have found themselves losing their way and being overtaken. Likewise SpaceX’s lead, which may at present appear unassailable, is likely only temporary. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why SpaceX might be going public sooner rather than later.
We are proud to share that our trade mark team has been featured in the 2026 edition of the World Trademark Review (WTR) 1000 guide. Partners Claire Breheny, Gary Johnston, Rebecca Tew have all been highlighted as Recommended Individuals, and Partner Harry Rowe has also been commended in WTR for the first time this year.
The WTR 1000 directory is an esteemed guide to the top trade mark firms and attorneys across the globe, showcasing the talent which clients can expect. Mathys & Squire has been ranked highly in the ‘prosecution and strategy’ category. In the directory, our commitment to outstanding service is lauded:“Mathys & Squire provides a cradle to grave trademark service, combining strategic insight with high-quality, commercially focused advice that makes an impact, without compromising on cost-efficiency.”
Alongside our firm ranking, the Partners in our trade mark team have received the following testimonials:
Heading up the trademark team, Claire Breheny is a “trusted and valued adviser. She has a deep knowledge of her clients’ portfolios, current priorities and strategic interests. Claire can be relied on to provide a clear legal interpretation of the matter at hand as well as a considered commercial view.”
“Gary Johnston is a well-respected trademark practitioner who provides pragmatic and well-thought through advice. He is no-nonsense in his approach and an astute problem solver with deep experience. A recent highlight for Johnston includes successfully securing the registration of a colour mark for Design Blue Limited. By compiling a substantial body of historical evidence and presenting it at a formal hearing, he persuasively argued the case, ultimately convincing the Hearing Officer to approve the registration.”
“Rebecca Tew is swift and agile in her approach to handling trademark matters as well as polite, respectful and a joy to work with. Tew recently achieved success in opposing a trademark registration that encroached on her client’s house mark. Through decisive action and well-crafted arguments, she was able to bring the proceedings to a quick and favourable resolution.”
Making his debut in the WTR 1000 this year, Harry Rowe is an “excellent trademark practitioner. He is diligent and always provides clear, practical strategic advice which allows his clients to weigh up potential options and take the next steps with confidence.” Clients also appreciate how “responsive he is. Harry is always happy to pick up the phone to discuss more complex matters, drawing on his experience to advise on standard practices and recommended strategies.”
We would like to thank our clients, contacts and peers who took the time to participate in their research and share their positive feedback. For more information and to see the full WTR 1000 rankings, click here.
Partner Claire Breheny has been featured in “Gucci to Zara: Brands ramp up fight against domain ‘squatting'” by CityAM.
In the article, Claire provides commentary on the rising number of legal cases against instances of website domain-squatting, particularly among large global fashion brands, and how companies should act.
Read the extended press release below.
Disputes over web addresses that have been “squatted” have risen from 6,168 to 6,282 cases globally* over the course of last year, leading intellectual property law firm Mathys & Squire says. This is up 49% in five years (from 4,204) and 128% in ten years (from 2,754).
It says that website domain squatting by fraudsters continues to be a significant challenge for major brands.
Fraudsters frequently set up websites with similar names to brands so that they can sell counterfeit goods such as luxury handbags, luxury clothing and even pharmaceuticals.
Last year Gucci had to launch 20 cases, Zara owner Inditex launched 5 cases, Eli Lilly, the pharmaceuticals giant behind weight loss jab Mounjaro was involved in 25 cases.
Iconic toys group Lego was involved in 59 domain disputes last year and Temu 16.
Domain squatting is when people register web addresses that are similar those of legitimate businesses, such as retailers, luxury brands, toys group and drugs companies.
Claire Breheny, Head of Trade Marks at Mathys & Squire, says: “Domain name disputes remain a persistent problem for major companies. Fraudsters impersonating well-known brands can cause those brands significant reputational harm and serious revenue loss.”
Breheny explained that the high number of disputes is being driven by the rapid expansion of global domain extensions, such as .shop, .online and .tech. The constantly growing range of available domains means businesses struggle to keep track of registrations that can be connected to their brands.
Many website security engineering teams do not have the capacity to monitor every new domain that appears, limiting their ability to detect misuse at an early stage. Mathys & Squire says this is increasing the need for better monitoring tools and more robust brand-protection strategies.
Breheny added: “The explosion of new domain extensions is outpacing what most teams can monitor. That gap is giving fraudsters greater scope to exploit well-known brands.”
In the UK, domain squatting remains a significant issue, with WIPO cases brought by UK companies doubling in a decade, from 229 to 450.
Claire Breheny says: ‘Domain abuse in the UK is persistent. These figures show that brands cannot afford to be complacent.’
Mathys & Squire says companies should proactively monitor domain registrations across all relevant extensions and secure the most important brand-related domains at an early stage. It adds that businesses should act quickly to challenge infringing registrations to prevent consumer fraud and protect corporate reputation.
Claire Breheny concludes: ‘To reduce the risk of impersonation, businesses must take a proactive approach by registering key domains, monitoring new registrations and challenging fraudulent sites before they damage the brand.’
When Brooklyn Beckham published a series of statements on Instagram on 19 January 2026, much of the public’s attention focused on the emotional details of his rift with parents David and Victoria Beckham. But among the allegations of wedding-day tensions, cancelled dresses and family disagreements, one claim in particular caught the attention of trade mark professionals: Brooklyn’s allegation that he was pressured in to “signing away the rights to my name” in the weeks leading up to his wedding.
While the family dispute is still unfolding, the situation offers a timely opportunity to examine how trade mark rights, personal names and commercial control intersect, especially within celebrity families where names are valuable global brands.
Brooklyn alleged that his parents attempted to pressure and “bribe” him into signing over the rights to his name before his wedding – the statements form part of a larger narrative – but regardless of the personal dynamics involved, the idea of “signing away rights to a name” raises important discussions around how celebrity names are protected and monetised.
Under trade mark law, personal names can function as trade marks, and can be inherently distinctive, provided the name is capable of indicating trade origin. The registrability of a sign made up of a famous name depends on both the goods and services applied for and the extent of their fame, as consumers may sometimes view such names as describing the subject matter rather than indicating trade origin – such as in relation to posters and books for example. The names really need to be assessed in relation to the goods and services applied for.
Brooklyn Beckham as a trade mark
Brooklyn’s situation is not unusual in the celebrity world, where personal names frequently evolve into powerful commercial brands. From Victoria and David Beckham to global figures like Beyoncé, Rihanna (Fenty), and Kylie Jenner, many public personalities have turned their names into trade mark‑protected assets underpinning major business ventures. Historic examples such as Disney, Chanel and Ferrari show how a surname can become synonymous with entire industries. Against this backdrop, it becomes easier to understand why control over the name “Brooklyn Beckham” carries both commercial value and strategic importance, and why disputes over such rights can become so sensitive.
The Beckham name is already a globally protected brand, used across fashion, sports, endorsements and commercial ventures. In such families, the name operates not just as an identity but as intellectual property. So if a dispute arises over control, licensing or ownership, trade mark agreements may be involved.
Brooklyn’s allegation suggests pressure to assign rights or enter a licensing arrangement regarding the commercial use of “Brooklyn Beckham” as a brand.
In practice, this could involve:
- Agreeing to not file or use the trade mark “Brooklyn Beckham”
- Signing exclusive licensing agreements
- Giving a third party control over brand management
- Agreeing to restrictions on how he uses his name commercially
These mechanisms are common in celebrity brand management, particularly within families that manage joint portfolios of trade marks. If Brooklyn’s name appears in existing applications or registrations owned by Beckham-related companies, it would not be unusual, but consent and formal agreements are essential.
That said, the UK and EU trade mark registrations for BROOKLYN BECKHAM remain recorded under the name “Victoria Beckham, as parent and guardian of Brooklyn Beckham.” Both registrations are due to expire this year, and it will be interesting to see whether they are renewed, whether fresh applications are filed in Brooklyn Beckham’s own name, or perhaps even whether a new US filing is pursued.
What does this mean for Brooklyn?
Brooklyn Beckham is building his own commercial identity through his food venture: he is the owner of Buster Hot Sauce Inc., the company behind his Cloud23 hot sauce brand, and the business has already secured trade mark registrations in the UK, US and EU. There is even a US application for “Beck’s Buns”. This naturally raises the question of whether the wider Beckham brand would consent to such use, as ‘Becks’ could be considered objectionable, particularly given that David Beckham has long been known by the nickname ‘Becks’ making the mark potentially problematic from both a trade mark and brand protection perspective.
From a brand management perspective, consolidating control helps ensure greater consistency by preventing conflicting or potentially damaging uses of the brand. It also strengthens protection by centralising enforcement under a single rights holder, while supporting a clearer commercial strategy by aligning all brand activities and ventures within the family.
For globally recognised families like the Beckhams, name rights can be worth millions in endorsements and commercial deals. But such control can also create tension where multiple individuals share the same surname yet pursue separate careers, business ventures or personal branding.
Many celebrities do contractually assign elements of their intellectual property, including name rights, to management companies. However, any such assignment must always be voluntary, based on informed consent, and must not interfere with an individual’s fundamental right to use their own name for personal identification.
It is important to note that Brooklyn is not automatically prevented from using his name in trade. UK trade mark law recognises the own‑name defence under Section 11(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, which allows individuals to use their personal names provided the use is in accordance with honest commercial practices.
However, the defence has limits. It does not apply to businesses or companies, and it cannot protect dishonest or opportunistic conduct. Crucially, it can also be overridden by contract: if someone has signed an agreement assigning or restricting the commercial use of their name, those contractual terms take precedence. In this context, Brooklyn’s suggestion that he was pressured into signing away rights in his own name is significant, as any such agreement could prevent him from relying on the own‑name defence at all.
Lessons for trade mark strategy
The Beckham situation, regardless of where the truth ultimately lies, illustrates several broader lessons for trade mark strategy, particularly in families or groups that share commercially valuable names.
- First, families managing joint brand portfolios need clear governance structures. Celebrity families often rely on shared trade marks, and it is essential to have transparent agreements setting out who controls what, and for what purpose.
- Second, early discussions can prevent conflict further down the line. When younger family members begin developing their own brands, establishing clear parameters around the use of surnames and personal names can minimise the risk of disputes later.
- Third, trade marks are not purely legal or commercial tools, they can be emotional ones. Control over a name can feel deeply personal, and Brooklyn’s statement highlights how issues surrounding name ownership can carry significant emotional weight in a family context.
- Finally, public disputes can damage the value of a brand. High‑profile conflicts, such as the widely reported Beckham feud, risk diluting the perceived unity and stability of a family brand, potentially impacting public perception and commercial value.
Brooklyn Beckham’s recent public statements have sparked widespread discussion, not only about family dynamics but also about the question of who ultimately controls a name when that name operates as a global brand. His allegation that he was pressured to sign away “the rights to my name” brings into sharp focus the overlap between personal identity and commercial identity in celebrity life.
Regardless of the accuracy of the claims, the situation serves as a clear reminder of the importance of trade mark agreements and brand management, and an appreciation of the fact that names hold both emotional and economic significance. In short, the Beckham dispute is more than tabloid drama, it stands as a case study in modern brand governance, personal rights, and the intersection between family relationships and IP.
We are pleased to share that Partner Nicholas Fox is one of three new General Editors for the next publication of The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) Guide to the Patents Act.
The CIPA Guide to the Patents Act, colloquially known as “The Black Book,” is a highly esteemed resource which offers a comprehensive review of the recent developments in patent law. It consists of the full Patents Act of 1977, accompanied by a detailed analysis of its application, drawing on the expertise of over 30 professionals. CIPA has announced that the 10th edition of The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys Guide to the Patents Act will be published in 2026.
Nicholas Fox is a qualified solicitor, and a qualified European and Chartered British patent attorney with full rights of audience to appear in IP proceedings at all levels in the English High Court. In addition, he is qualified and admitted as an Attorney-at-Law in the State of New York.
Nicholas is the author of A Guide to the EPC 2000 (CIPA) and has been a contributing author to the CIPA Guide for a number of years, responsible for writing the sections relating to the regulation of the profession. He has lectured on litigation and IP matters for the European Patent Academy and has been a guest lecturer at Queen Mary. Previously, Nicholas was a CPA member of the IPReg Board.
You can keep up to date with CIPA here.
Partner and Head of Trade Marks Claire Breheny has been featured in ‘UK IPO still grappling with surge of trademark filings from front companies’ in MLex.
The article discusses how applications from China played a significant role in another record year for trade mark filings at the UK IPO, many of which are submitted via front companies, which has prompted concern following prior worries in 2023 regarding applications from unregulated representatives.
Claire provided commentary on this jump in trade mark filings, stating that the IPO is struggling to stay on top of them, and shared how the aftermath of filings by unregulated representatives usually unfolds.
Read the article in full here.
