Jeff Gosling Ltd v Autochair Ltd [2025] EWHC 1687 (IPEC)

JGL sought a declaration of non-infringement for their Apex Assist hoist. Autochair claimed that the product infringed their patent for a vehicle-mounted mobility aid. The patent required “stepless” adjustments to both the height and length of the lifting arm. JGL’s product used grub screws and blind holes which created stepped adjustments for one of these functions.

Judge Hacon ruled that both the height and length adjustments must be stepless to fall within the patent’s scope. Since JGL’s hoist didn’t meet this requirement, it did not infringe under normal claim construction.

Autochair also argued indirect infringement under s.60(2) of the Patents Act 1977, claiming fitters might modify the hoist to infringe. The court rejected this, noting that such modifications would be irresponsible, go directly against the fitting instructions and void warranties. This therefore excluded possible fitter modifications from consideration.

Finally, the doctrine of equivalents failed. Judge Hacon ruled that 10mm stepped adjustments didn’t achieve the same flexibility as stepless ones.

Key Takeaway: Where patents specify technical features, the Court is unlikely to stretch interpretation to near-equivalents. Indirect infringement is based only on responsible foreseeable use, not hypothetical misuse.

Lant v Plastic Head Music Distribution Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 1954 (IPEC)

We’ve published an in-depth article on this case already and would encourage you to read it here for a breakdown of an interesting factual decision. If you just want the key takeway read on.

Key takeway: If you’ve created logos or other brand assets without written agreements, you might not actually own them. Copyright belongs to the creator unless it’s been assigned, even if you paid for the work. To avoid disputes, make sure you’ve got contracts in place and ask for a moral rights waiver too.

Martin & Ors v Bodegas San Huberto SA & Ors [2025] EWHC 1827 (IPEC)

This case involved claims of copyright infringement and passing off brought by visual artist Ms Martin and Found the Found, to whom she had assigned copyright in a wall drawing created for an exhibition. Ms Martin, known for her distinctive style and collaborations with brands like The North Face and Tiffany & Co., alleged that wine labels used by Argentine winery Bodegas San Huberto (BSH), UK distributor GM Drinks, and its director Mr Patch copied her work.

BSH initially commissioned a designer to create a wine label in 2018. After Ms Martin raised concerns in 2020, two redesigned versions followed, but complaints continued. The court found that the original label infringed copyright and misrepresented an association with Ms Martin. GM Drinks was liable for both infringement and passing off, while BSH and Mr Patch were jointly liable for acts after the complaint was raised. However, the second and third labels had removed key features, such as humanoid faces, and were found not to infringe.

The judge criticised the claimants for evidentiary gaps, including relying on images instead of physical labels and failing to provide records of alleged misrepresentation.

Key takeaway: Inspired designs can avoid infringement if they diverge enough from the original. If you’re making a claim, gather and preserve strong evidence.

WISE Payments Ltd v With Wise Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1722 (IPEC)

The dispute centred around the use of the name “WISE” by two parties operating in different sectors. The Claimant, originally known as TRANSFERWISE, began using the name WISE following a rebrand announced in 2021, although it had registered a UK trade mark for WISE back in 2019. Meanwhile, the First Defendant had been using the name WISE since 2020 for onboarding and invoicing services in the logistics sector. The Claimant alleged trade mark infringement of both its WISE logo and TRANSFERWISE word mark and also claimed passing off.

The court quickly dismissed the TRANSFERWISE claim, finding no likelihood of confusion with the Defendant’s “With Wise” branding. More significantly, the court found that the Claimant’s WISE trade mark had been applied for in bad faith, as it included overly broad specifications (such as software) without genuine intent to use. The passing off claim also failed, as the Claimant hadn’t built sufficient goodwill in the WISE brand by the time of the alleged infringement.

However, the Defendant succeeded in its counterclaim for passing off, having established goodwill in its invoicing services. The judge noted that neither party truly prevailed and expressed disappointment that a co-existence agreement hadn’t been reached earlier.

Key takeaway: Be precise with trade mark specifications, conduct thorough clearance searches, and try to resolve branding disputes before they reach court.

Courtnay-Smith & Anor v The Notting Hill Shopping Bag Company Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1793 (IPEC)

This case revolved around the sale of reusable tote bags on London’s Portobello Road, where two claimants alleged copyright infringement, trade mark infringement, and passing off. At first glance, their claims appeared strong, but the case unravelled due to several legal and procedural oversights.

The first issue was ownership of the trade mark. The company that held the rights had been struck off, meaning its assets, including the trade mark, automatically vested in the Crown under section 1012(1) of the Companies Act 2006. To reclaim those rights, the claimants needed either a court order to restore the company or a vesting order, or to purchase the rights from the Crown. They hadn’t done any of these.

The second issue involved trade mark renewal. Under section 43 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, only certain parties can renew a mark. The claimants didn’t fall into any of the permitted categories.

On copyright, the court found that the scope of creative freedom in the tote bag design was limited, meaning only close copies would infringe. Finally, the passing off claim failed due to insufficient evidence of goodwill.

Key takeaway: If you’re asserting IP rights, make sure you own them, renew them properly, and gather solid evidence to support your claims.

Battlekart Europe SA v Chaos Karts 1 Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 1936 (IPEC)

This case centred around a patent for creating an immersive go-kart experience. The claimant alleged patent infringement and in response the defendant counterclaimed for revocation of the patent on the grounds of obviousness, implausibility and added matter.

On obviousness, the defendants presented three instances, with one being a demonstration by the claimant which took place prior to the priority date. Ultimately, this case failed to get into gear, as the defendants were able to establish that it was part of the common general knowledge that here had been commercially available options for many of the elements claimed by the patent which existed before the priority date. Particular reference was made to a third party offering called the BlackTrax system.

In relatively short order the Judge found that the patent claim relied upon by the claimant was obvious over each of the three examples of prior art cited.

The Judge went on to consider the question of added matter, with this point focussed on the meaning of the words “sources comprising” in claim 1 of the patent which meant “each source comprising” according to the claimant. The Judge disagreed, finding that a reader of the patent would not interpret the patent in the manner alleged by the claimant. The patent was therefore declared invalid for added matter.

Key takeaway: Choice of expert therefore remains key when acting in patent matters.  It was clear from the judgment that the Judge preferred the views of the Defendant’s expert, who had deep experience in developing software and lighting systems, over those of the claimant’s expert, who was an academic in a computer science department.

How we can support you

The Walker Morris IP team is a full service intellectual property department, supporting an array of clients across a variety of sectors throughout the whole IP life cycle, from development to marketing, commercialising, protection and enforcement. If you have any questions or if you would like to speak to one of our experts about how we might support you and your business with your IP needs, please get in touch.