EIP Trademark team recognised by WTR 1000 2021

No items found.
​
February 16, 2021
#
Trademarking
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

EIP has been highlighted as one of the world’s leading trademark specialists in the 2021 edition of WTR 1000.

Researchers for WTR 1000, published annually by World Trademark Review, references EIP’s international offices which puts it at a distinct advantage on cross-border trademark protection and litigation assignments. The team is noted for its clear communication and knowledge sharing between its various offices ensure a seamless service without limits.

Head of Brands Claire Lehr is noted as providing “critical information along with long-range strategic guidance regarding the protection of existing brand assets and the development of new ones”.

WTR 1000 notes that Claire and fellow partner Paula Flutter form a great team, with valuable contributions from seasoned associate Nora Fowler.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​