News

In a ruling in November 2025, the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court held that handbags reconstructed from second-hand Louis Vuitton products infringed Louis Vuitton’s registered trade marks where the brand’s trade marks remained prominently visible on the upcycled goods. (Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Shenzhen Bangtu Cultural Media Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Province Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court (China), First Instance Civil Judgment (Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition)). This article reviews the Chinese decision and outlines the position under English law.

After months of anticipation from the creative industries and the AI sector alike, the government has published the Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence pursuant to Section 136 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Unfortunately, the report signals a lack of commitment by the government to a clear course of action, with next steps boiling down to seeking further evidence, monitoring international standards, and working with industry and experts. However, the Report should reassure right holders that the government is adapting its approach to better accommodate the needs of the creative sector as evidenced by the abandonment of the wide text and data mining exception to copyright initially favoured by the government.

Lessons learned from Thom Browne Inc and Thom Browne UK Limited (Thom Browne) v adidas AG and adidas International Marketing B.V. (adidas) [2024] EWHC 2990 (Ch). This case, before the English High Court, is brought by adidas for claims of trade mark infringement and passing off against Thom Browne relating to its use of stripes on clothing. It illustrates the consequences of overly broad trade mark registrations.

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (the “Act”) represents the most significant reform to UK data protection since Brexit. Most provisions are being phased in between August 2025 and June 2026 through secondary legislation. This article offers a brief overview of the key changes affecting UK businesses. With our firm’s focus on advising creators on the use and impact of artificial intelligence, we end by discussing the provisions of the Act which become the vehicle for acknowledging broader concerns of the creative industries.

In the UK, whilst design right and copyright can subsist in the same article, for example the original shape of a teapot might attract unregistered design right whilst the pattern applied to it might attract copyright, the law has distinguished between artistic works and commercial designs. A work that is created, broadly speaking, for functional use, will attract design right whilst an artistic work (a book, piece of music or sculpture) will attract copyright. Broadly, the distinction acknowledges that whilst it is appropriate that a unique creative work should enjoy copyright protection for the life of the author plus 70 years, this is not appropriate in the world of industrial/commercial design where design is expected to evolve more rapidly and to do so on the back of the existing design corpus. Design rights last for a much shorter period of time, usually 3-10 years, unless the design is registered in which case protection can last for up to 25 years.

This article provides an outline of the key copyright implications of the first English judgment on generative AI. The judgment has been eagerly awaited by the creative and technology industries, as well as the government which, so far, has been unsuccessful in resolving the tension between them arising from the use of copyright works by AI developers.