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’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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
We are proud to share that we have successfully passed the ISO 9001 and 14001 audit for the 9th year.
The British Assessment Bureau leads the ISO certifications to evaluate businesses on their commitment to excellence in work processes and management systems.
ISO 9001 (Quality Assurance) showcases the firm’s dedication to delivering an excellent standard of customer service which is both consistent and constantly improving, and signifies that we meet the globally recognised benchmark.
ISO 14001 (Environmental Management) demonstrates the firm’s adherence to environmental guidelines, recognising the care we take to use resources in an efficient way and reduce waste. This certification clearly shows the meaningful progress we are making in reducing our carbon footprint.
We are proud of our environmental awareness as a firm, and are delighted to be able to formalise our progress and gain recognition for our dedication to providing a first-class service to our clients.
To find out more about ISO 9001 and ISO 14001, click here.
As of the 1st of January 2026, regulations in Chinese intellectual property law are shifting to impact the measure of patentability for AI-related inventions.
On 10 November 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued Order No. 84 amending the guidelines for patent examination, with effect from the 1st of January 2026. The amendments follow a public consultation process and build upon the Guidelines for Patent Applications Related to Artificial Intelligence (Trial) issued in December 2024.
AI is a major focus of the amendments, reflecting both rapid technological development and increasing regulatory attention to ethical and governance concerns.
CNIPA has explicitly introduced examination standards under Article 5(1) of the Patent Law, pursuant to which inventions that violate laws, social morality or public interests are excluded from patent protection.
In practice, this means that AI inventions involving:
may be refused on public policy and ethics grounds, regardless of their technical merits.
The amended Guidelines clarify that:
This reinforces CNIPA’s expectation of a genuine technical contribution, rather than a repackaging of known AI techniques.
Applicants must now pay closer attention to sufficiency of disclosure, particularly where AI models exhibit “black box” characteristics.
Specifications should generally disclose:
The first sentence of Section 6.1 “Examination Principles” has been amended from:
“Examination shall be conducted with respect to the solution for which protection is sought, namely the solution defined in the claims,”
to:
“Examination shall be conducted with respect to the solution for which protection is sought, namely the solution defined in the claims, and, where necessary, with respect to the contents of the description.”
This amendment enables a more comprehensive and thorough examination of AI- and big data–related patent applications.
At Mathys & Squire, we have patent attorneys who specialise in AI and the patentability of AI-related inventions, as well as patent attorneys with experience filing patents in China. Please get in touch with a member of our team here if you are seeking advice.
AI is becoming more and more rooted in everyday life, making tedious tasks easier and more efficient. However, using AI for tasks which require rigorous diligence and involve confidential information, such as patent drafting, could be fatal. SMEs and inventors must carefully consider when AI is appropriate and when it will cause more harm than good.
The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) recently published their guidance on using AI tools as an SME or inventor. The guidance stresses the importance of being aware of the risks which come with using AI in patent work. AI undermines two core pillars of the patent system: human invention and absolute confidentiality. AI errors in a poorly drafted application could cause problems for years to come, whilst the unintended disclosure of information, such as inputting your invention into non-confidential AI tools, could render your patent application wholly unviable.
CIPA underlines several key risks behind using AI tools for patent work:
It is vital to never input a description of an invention into AI tools before you have filed a patent application. AI tools with guaranteed data isolation and which promise confidentiality can be considered, but care should still be taken to thoroughly check the accuracy of the output and provide clear evidence of human contribution. You can monitor evolving AI regulations through ongoing guidance from the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the UK Intellectual Property Office.
It is recommended to seek counsel from a patent attorney who has knowledge of the technology and legal landscape, and can advise you on your use of AI. Patent attorneys are also vital sources of information regarding what constitutes a complete and viable patent application, and will be more attuned to AI errors.
At Mathys & Squire, we have patent attorneys who specialise in AI and have a deep understanding of the legal implications for both AI-based inventions and the use of AI tools. Please get in touch with a member of our team here if you are seeking advice.
To read the full guidance from CIPA click here.
Partner Andrea McShane has been featured in the World Intellectual Property Review, the Daily Express, London Loves Business and Business Money following her commentary on the UK’s ‘Patent Box’ scheme which provides tax breaks on inventions which are patented, encouraging businesses to keep and commercialise intellectual property.
Andrea McShane argues that it should be more simple for SMEs to take part in the patent scheme, as high compliance costs and complex requirements for claims prevent them from reaping the benefits.
Read the extended press release below.
SMEs received only 5% or £100m of the £2bn in tax breaks claimed last year that are intended to encourage businesses to file more patents, says intellectual property (IP) law firm Mathys & Squire [Source: HMRC].
The UK’s patent box tax relief can save companies tens of millions of pounds by reducing corporation tax on profits from patented inventions to 10%, down from the standard 25%. It was introduced to encourage business to invest in R&D and then patent their inventions and bring them to market.
SMEs are estimated to generate 52% of the turnover of all UK businesses [Source: Department for Business and Trade].
Mathys & Squire says SMEs face higher barriers to claiming the tax break because of high compliance costs and uncertainty over whether their claims will be approved by HMRC. This can even deter them from investing in R&D in the first place.
Andrea McShane, Partner at Mathys & Squire, says: “Patent box can save businesses very significant amounts of corporation tax but in our experience only few smaller companies pursue this tax break. For many SMEs the costs and uncertainties of getting into the patent box regime simply outweigh the benefits.”
“Some SMEs develop genuinely exciting inventions but give up on protecting them, potentially making it easy for competitors to imitate them, but also losing out on their patent box opportunity.”
McShane says patent box claims can be very complex, making it disproportionately costly for SMEs to pursue them.
“Patent box claims can be challenging to prepare, which puts smaller businesses at a clear disadvantage compared to larger ones,” she says.
“Larger companies can afford more extensive protection of their IP, more sophisticated tax advice and accountancy tools to set up systems to track income relating to relevant patent rights. Small businesses working on tight budgets may not be able to afford that.”
McShane says the government must do more to help smaller companies benefit from the relief if it wants to improve the UK’s low level of R&D spend. Currently, spending on R&D in the UK is estimated to be 2.9% of GDP [Source: World Bank], behind countries such as the US (3.6%), Japan (3.4%) and Germany (3.1%).
McShane says this could be achieved by removing requirements on SMEs specifically. It can also be more generous, for example through subsidies. SMEs could for example receive help in covering the costs of patenting inventions so smaller innovators are not discouraged by the expense of developing and protecting inventions.
The valuation of patent assets is rarely straightforward. While clients often ask, “What is my patent worth?”, the underlying question is, “What is my patent worth for this specific purpose and to this specific party?”
Unlike tangible assets, patents derive value from economic potential, which involves broader considerations than solely the inherent qualities of the patent assets. That economic potential may vary significantly depending on who is assessing the asset and why.
For existing owners, patents may be valued in relation to their ability to support a commercial strategy such as protecting market share, enabling higher margins, licensing opportunities, or deterring competitors, and the impact these various factors have on their potential to generate future revenues. A patent covering a core technology may be worth many times the cost of its development if it preserves exclusivity in a key market segment.
However, to a potential acquirer or licensee, the same patent may hold a very different value. A buyer with a complementary product line may see far greater commercial synergies than the current owner, translating into a higher valuation. Conversely, an acquirer lacking manufacturing capability, distribution channels or market presence may attribute less value, even to a robust patent family. Put simply, context shapes utility, and utility drives value.
Patent valuations are commonly required for transactions, fundraising, litigation, tax planning, financial reporting and internal strategy. Each of these contexts calls for different methodologies and assumptions:
The resulting figures can differ dramatically, even for the same patent portfolio.
Across contexts, certain core factors consistently influence value:
As each stakeholder may assess each of these drivers differently, valuations often diverge, sometimes significantly.
Businesses should avoid treating patent valuation as a one-time, one-number exercise. Instead, it is an evolving economic assessment shaped by the interests and capabilities of each party involved. As companies consider licensing, investment or sale, understanding how different stakeholders perceive value can make the difference between capturing full commercial potential and leaving money on the table.
For clients preparing for transactions or strategic planning, a well-reasoned, context-specific valuation is one of the most powerful tools for informed decision-making and in understanding the drivers underpinning the value of patent assets in the relevant context.
In commercial negotiations, the articulation of a valuation calculation and the factors driving it can be as important as the valuation figure.
Having acted for a broad range of clients from SMEs to large international companies, and across a range of technologies and contexts, the team at Mathys & Squire Consulting would welcome the opportunity to discuss how best to support your valuation needs.
You can reach out to our team here.
