Waterfront’s trade mark lawyers have been recognised in the World Trademark Review 1000 (WTR 1000) for the fifth successive year in a row. The WTR 1000 research directory focuses exclusively on trade mark practices and practitioners and is the definitive ‘go-to’ resource for those seeking world-class legal trade mark expertise.
Ranked highly in the trade mark enforcement and litigation section of the guide, Waterfront is described as punching above its weight, being commercially focused and being able to “effortlessly dispatch any contentious matter going”.
Partners Matthew Harris and Piers Strickland are also independently recognised as among the top trade mark lawyers in England. Combined Litigator and tactician Matthew Harris is said to have developed an encyclopaedic understanding of both trademarks and domain names across his 20-year career. Piers is said to really know his stuff when it comes to related issues such as design, copyright and software matters.
If you want to read more about Waterfront in the WTR 1000 visit the website.
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…