- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in Canada
- with readers working within the Construction & Engineering industries
The Highlights
- Post-Sale Confusion Clarified: The Supreme
Court in Iconix v. Dream Pairs confirmed that post-sale
confusion is a valid basis for trademark infringement, requiring
assessments to reflect realistic consumer perception beyond the
point of sale.
- AI and Trademark Law Intersect: In Getty
Images v. Stability AI found that Stability AI committed
limited and historic trade mark infringement by generating
synthetic images containing Getty Images watermarks using its
Stable Diffusion model, but rejected broader claims and clarified
that infringement in the generative AI context depends on specific
facts such as user prompts and model design.
- Protection Against Lookalikes Strengthened: The Court of Appeals in Thatchers v. Aldi reaffirmed that leveraging brand reputation through similar packaging constitutes infringement under section 10(3), even without consumer confusion.
2025 has been a year of significant developments in UK trademark law, with courts refining protections to meet new commercial and technological challenges. A trio of pivotal cases—Iconix v. Dream Pairs, Getty Images v. Stability AI, and Thatchers Cider Company v. Aldi Stores—illustrate how courts are shaping the principles that will guide brand protection in 2026 and beyond.
Iconix v. Dream Pairs: Supreme Court Clarifies Post-Sale Confusion
The UK Supreme Court's ruling in Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v. Dream Pairs Europe ([2025] UKSC 25) is a landmark decision on trademark infringement and the concept of postsale confusion under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
Iconix, owner of the Umbro brand and its iconic double-diamond logo, sued Dream Pairs over the logo A black and white logo used on footwear sold online.
At first instance, the High Court dismissed the claim, finding only a very low degree of similarity between the marks and sign and no likelihood of confusion.
The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that the High Court's assessment was "irrational" and finding a moderately high similarity in post-sale contexts, such as when a logo is viewed on football boots worn by someone else, thus creating a likelihood of confusion.
The Supreme Court then unanimously allowed Dream Pairs' appeal, restoring the High Court's decision. While confirming that post-sale confusion is a legitimate basis for infringement, the Supreme Court emphasised that similarity assessments must consider "realistic and representative" post-sale circumstances, including viewing angles and consumer perception after purchase.
Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that post-sale confusion need not affect subsequent purchasing decisions; the confusion itself constitutes actionable harm. This decision strengthens brand owners' ability to rely on post-sale confusion. It also signals that trademark protection extends beyond the point of sale, reflecting how consumers encounter brands in real life.
Getty Images v Stability AI: Trademark Infringement
The High Court has delivered its judgment in Getty Images v. Stability AI ([2025] EWHC 2863), the UK's first major case addressing generative AI and intellectual property. While Getty abandoned several claims during trial, the decision provides important guidance on trade mark law in the context of AI-generated outputs.
Getty alleged infringement under sections 10(1), 10(2) and 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, arguing that watermarks identical or similar to its registered marks: Getty Images and iStock, appeared in synthetic image outputs.
The court found "historic" and "extremely limited" instances of infringement under sections 10(1) and 10(2), but rejected the section 10(3) claim and declined to rule on passing off. Stability was refused permission to appeal.
The court adopted a granular approach, assessing infringement on a version-by-version basis. Earlier iterations of Stable Diffusion were more likely to produce watermarked outputs; later versions applied stronger filters.
Getty's reliance on experimental prompts was partly criticised as contrived, though the court accepted that generic prompts such as "news photo" and "vector art" reflected real-world use. Examples generated "in the wild" were treated as probative despite uncertain UK origin.
The judgment confirmed that Stability's conduct amounted to "use in the course of trade" and that providing synthetic image outputs fell within class 41 under "digital imaging services" and "downloadable digital illustrations and graphics" with class 9. Arguments on dilution, tarnishment and free-riding under section 10(3) failed due to lack of evidence of consumer behaviour change.
The ruling underscores that trademark infringement in GenAI cases will hinge on realistic prompts, user control and technical design choices. These issues are likely to dominate future litigation.
Thatchers v. Aldi: Court of Appeal Reaffirms Protection Against Lookalikes
The Court of Appeal's decision in Thatchers Cider Company Ltd v. Aldi Stores ([2025] EWCA Civ 5) marks a significant development in UK trademark law, particularly under section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
The case concerned Aldi's Taurus Cloudy Lemon Cider, which Thatchers alleged infringed its registered trade mark in the packaging of its own Cloudy Lemon Cider.
Thatchers launched its product in 2020, registering a figurative mark covering its distinctive packaging. Aldi introduced its competing product in 2022, adopting a design that Thatchers claimed deliberately evoked its branding.
At first instance, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) dismissed the claim, finding no likelihood of confusion and rejecting arguments of unfair advantage.
The appellate court overturned the IPEC ruling, holding that Aldi had taken unfair advantage of Thatchers' trademark. Lord Justice Arnold emphasised that Aldi's design choices, departing from its usual Taurus branding and incorporating elements reminiscent of Thatchers' get-up, were intended to create a link in consumers' minds.
This allowed Aldi to "ride on the coat-tails" of Thatchers' reputation, achieving rapid sales without equivalent marketing investment. The court concluded that such conduct was not in accordance with honest commercial practices.
The judgment clarified that infringement under section 10(3) does not require confusion; creating a mental association and exploiting brand reputation suffices. Aldi's defence under section 11(2)(b), claiming descriptive use, was rejected, as the similarities went beyond mere description.
This ruling strengthens brand owners' ability to challenge lookalike packaging, particularly where intention and unfair advantage can be demonstrated. It signals that courts will scrutinise design strategies aimed at leveraging established reputations, even absent consumer confusion. The Supreme Court later refused Aldi permission to appeal, cementing this as a leading authority on extended trademark protection.
Conclusion
The trademark cases underscore the continued evolution of UK trademark law, reflecting how courts are adapting to new commercial realities and technologies.
As we move into 2026, brand owners and practitioners will need to remain alert to emerging issues, from AI-generated content to extended trademark protection, ensuring strategies remain aligned with both established principles and innovative challenges.
Originally published by World Intellectual Property Review.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
