Waterfront has been named in the World Trademark Review 1000 (WTR 1000) list for the third successive year. The WTR 1000 research directory focuses exclusively on trademark practices and practitioners and provides a comprehensive resource for those seeking world-class legal trademark representation.
Highlighting Waterfront’s IP expertise, the guide references the firm’s streamlined, partner-led offering that is fast becoming one of London’s premier sources of “high-quality, specialist IP advice”.
Waterfront compared extremely favourably to other medium-sized IP solicitor firms, with the guide referring to the firm’s easy-going attitude, commercial nous and tactical awareness.
In addition, Waterfront’s trademark offering was described as a force to be reckoned with, reflected by the firm’s recent caseload which includes an infringement matter on behalf of the Financial Times; acting in litigation on behalf of Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and Scratch Meals; and a range of brand protection issues for Haribo.
Partners Matthew Harris and Piers Strickland were praised as top practitioners with the guide referring to their wealth of experience at the highest levels.
On 20th January 2025, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Thatchers Cider Company Limited (“Thatchers”) in a landmark trade mark infringement case against the discount supermarket chain, Aldi Stores Limited (“Aldi”). This decision overturned the earlier ruling by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (“IPEC”) and has…
As we begin 2025, the emergence and growth of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) shows no signs of slowing down. Many believe that AI has already outpaced the current legal and regulatory frameworks in the UK. This has led to businesses lacking the certainty and confidence they need to embrace…
The current legal framework in the UK does not allow copying of copyright-protected material for training generative AI models, except where it is carried out with permission of the copyright owner or done in a research or study context and for purely non-commercial purposes.
This matter deals with the Claimant’s (‘TVIS’) allegation of infringement and misrepresentation in relation to its “VETSURE” trade mark by the Defendant (‘Howserv’s’) “PETSURE” trade mark, used for pet insurance. In the first instance decision, the claim was dismissed due to the marks being highly descriptive and “not…