Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 MARCH 2025

If You Have Received An Email From Trademark Expressive, Please Proceed With Caution

Potter Clarkson LLP
Explore more from Potter Clarkson LLP

Recently we have received several enquiries from clients regarding an email they've received from a company called Trademark Expressive.

United KingdomIntellectual Property
Emmy Hunt
Emmy Hunt
Sarah Talland
Sarah Talland
Author LinkedIn connections

Recently we have received several enquiries from clients regarding an email they've received from a company called Trademark Expressive.

The email claims to be "reaching out on behalf of the legal department of Trademark Expressive" regarding a specific trade mark. They claim that someone is interested in the mark but having identified our client is using something very similar without having filed a trade mark application, they offer to make the application for them before the client loses their ability to do so under the UKIPO's 'first to file' policy.

While the email does include multiple references to UK 'trademark law' (sic) and UKIPO policy which gives it - at first glance - a credible feel, we felt duty bound to dig a little deeper on our clients' behalf.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

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.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

AI, Deepfakes And Image Rights: Does English Law Protect Your Face, Voice And Likeness?

Generative AI has created a legal vacuum where synthetic images and deepfakes can be created and shared without consent, yet English law offers no standalone "image right" to protect individuals. With celebrities like Lisa Riley and over 80 performers demanding reform, the question is whether the UK's patchwork of intellectual property, data protection, and common law protections can adequately address this rapidly evolving threat to personal autonomy and reputation.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Mills & Reeve LLP
Mills & Reeve LLP
Article

The Sound Of Ownership: Why AI Voice Cloning Is Raising New IP Questions

As AI voice cloning technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and accessible, the Save Our Voices Now campaign calls for statutory rights allowing individuals to own and control their voice as intellectual property. This article examines whether existing UK law sufficiently protects one of our most personal and recognisable attributes, exploring copyright, trade marks, passing off, and the practical steps individuals and businesses can take.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Ashfords LLP
Ashfords LLP
Article

High Court Clarifies The Limits Of Copyright Claims Against Online Marketplaces

The UK High Court has delivered a landmark ruling on online marketplace liability, dismissing Shein's copyright infringement claims against Temu and clarifying when platforms can be held responsible for third-party content. The judgment examines the boundaries of copyright ownership in complex supply chains and establishes important precedents for how marketplace operators should respond to infringement allegations.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

The Manchester Creative Industries AI Summit – The Government's Opportunity To Set Out A Policy Direction On Copyright And AI?

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has convened the Creative Industries AI Summit in Manchester to bring together rightsholders, regulators, platforms and AI labs to align on a common approach to copyright-protected works in AI development. The Summit will unveil the 'Manchester Principles', a framework establishing minimum conditions for using human creative work to train generative AI models.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Lewis Silkin
Lewis Silkin
Article

UPC CoA Confirms Jurisdiction Over Pending European Patent Application

The UPC Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Unified Patent Court can exercise jurisdiction over European patent applications, provided they are granted before the defendant files their statement of defence. This landmark decision means patent holders may now be locked into the UPC system even before their patents are officially granted, fundamentally changing the strategic timing considerations for opting out of UPC jurisdiction.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

EHDS And The Future Of Health Data Transactions In Europe

The European Health Data Space (EHDS) regulation has entered into force, creating a harmonised framework for cross-border health data access across the EU. While Europe possesses exceptional health data resources—particularly in Nordic countries with comprehensive patient registries—it has historically lacked the commercial data market infrastructure seen in the United States. This analysis explores how life science companies and investors can position themselves to capitalise on emerging opport
European UnionFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
Potter Clarkson LLP
Potter Clarkson LLP
Article

Can AI-generated Content Be Protected By Copyright?

When a competitor copies artwork from a campaign created using AI, can copyright law protect your business? In the UK, protection depends critically on the level of human creative contribution involved in the work's creation. Understanding how copyright applies to AI-generated content, who owns the resulting rights, and what steps businesses should take to protect their valuable AI-assisted work is essential in today's digital landscape.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Potter Clarkson LLP
Potter Clarkson LLP
Article

G 1/25: Description Amendments At The EPO - Business As Usual?

The Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued its decision in G 1/25, addressing a fundamental question in European patent practice: when must patent descriptions be amended to align with amended claims? This landmark ruling establishes new guidance on the relationship between claims and descriptions, building upon the interpretive framework set forth in G 1/24 and potentially reshaping how practitioners approach description amendments at the EPO.
AfghanistanIntellectual Property
Potter Clarkson LLP
Potter Clarkson LLP