Month: December 2025

Are Your Trademarks at Risk? Preparing for 2026 Deadline

When the UK formally left the European Union on 1 January 2021, all registered EU Trade Marks (EUTMs) were automatically cloned into equivalent UK registrations – approximately 2 million entries onto the UKIPO register. This mechanism ensured continuity of protection for brand owners without the need for re-filing or additional cost. To soften the impact of Brexit, a transitional period of five years was introduced, allowing rights holders to rely on use of their mark anywhere in the EU to demonstrate genuine use of the corresponding UK registration. As this transitional period draws to a close on 1 January 2026, brand owners must now assess whether their UK trademarks are adequately protected, and whether they can withstand scrutiny based on non-use.

The Importance of Genuine Use.

Under UK trademark law, registration alone is not sufficient to maintain enforceable rights. A trademark must be put to genuine commercial use within five years of registration, failing which it becomes vulnerable to revocation. Third parties, such as competitors seeking to clear the path for a new brand, may apply to revoke a registration on the grounds of non-use. According to UK Intellectual Property Office statistics, non-use revocation actions account for a significant proportion of contentious trademark proceedings each year, reflecting the strategic value of such challenges.


In infringement proceedings, lack of use is also commonly deployed as a defensive tactic. A defendant may counterclaim for revocation of the claimant’s trademark, potentially undermining the basis of the enforcement action entirely. This risk is particularly acute for cloned UK registrations that have remained unused since Brexit.

What Constitutes Use.

Use must be genuine and commercial in nature and not merely token activity intended to preserve rights. UK courts have consistently held that genuine use requires real economic activity, assessed considering the nature of the goods or services and the characteristics of the relevant market. For example, a single high value transaction, may suffice in a specialist industrial sector, whereas more frequent sales would be expected for consumer goods.

Evidence of use may include sales invoices, product packaging, marketing campaigns, website activity targeting UK consumers, or participation in UK trade fairs. Importantly, use must be in the United Kingdom. From 1 January 2026, use of a mark solely within the EU will no longer be capable of supporting the validity of the UK registration.

What Brand Owners Should Do Right Now.

With the deadline approaching, trademark owners should undertake a strategic review of their UK portfolios. This includes identifying cloned registrations that have not yet been used in the UK and assessing their commercial importance. Where use exists, owners should gather and organise evidence now, as reconstructing proof retrospectively can be difficult and costly.

Where marks are commercially valuable but unused, businesses should consider whether it is feasible to commence genuine UK use, even on a modest scale. Early steps such as launching a UK facing website, appointing a distributor, or undertaking targeted advertising may be sufficient, provided the activity is commercially credible.

Let Whitestone assist you for failure to act before the end of the transitional period may result in the loss of valuable UK trademark rights, increased exposure to competitors, and reduced leverage in enforcement actions. Proactive preparation is therefore essential to ensure continued brand protection in the UK in a post Brexit landscape.

© Lawrence Power 2025

Sources

Abion, Brexit-Cloned UK Trade Marks: Preparing for the 31 December Deadline
Brexit-Cloned UK Trade Marks: Preparing for The Deadline

UK Intellectual Property Office, EU trade mark protection and comparable UK trade marks: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/eu-trade-mark-protection-and-comparable-uk-trade-marks

Trade Marks Act 1994, Section 46 (Revocation for non use) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/section/46

Mewburn Ellis: Genuine Use of Trademarks: Genuine use of trade marks

UKIPO decision O/540/21 at passages (5) and (6) – summarises the principles to be applied in testing whether there is genuine commercial exploitation: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-challenge-decision-results/o54021.pdf

Evidence of Use: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trade-marks-standard-opposition/guidance-standard-opposition-proceedings-before-the-trade-marks-tribunal

NHS Car Parks on Trial: The Supreme Court Speaks

The Supreme Court’s October 2025 decision in Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation v Revenue and Customs [i] is a landmark moment for how VAT applies to NHS-generated income. The ruling closes a long-running debate about whether NHS Trusts can treat car parking as exempt from VAT under the ‘special legal regime’, (‘SLR’).

Background

The dispute began when Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust appealed a decision by HMRC, which refused to recognise the Trust’s car parking revenues as exempt from VAT on the grounds of being provided under a ‘special legal regime’ (SLR), a status that can allow public bodies to act as public authorities outside the usual VAT rules. The Trust argued its parking operations were governed by Department of Health guidance, implying a binding obligation and SLR status, and therefore that VAT should not be charged. Initial judgments by the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal did not support the Trust’s interpretation, but in 2024, the Court of Appeal sided with the Trust, stating its statutory duties brought the activity within the regime. [ii]

The Supreme Court Ruling

On appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeal, concluding that merely following guidance or public law duties does not establish a binding ‘special legal regime’ sufficient for VAT exemption. The Court affirmed that the Trust’s hospital car parking services compete with private operators and that exempting the NHS from VAT would distort competition [iii], which is contrary to VAT law’s objectives. As a result, NHS Trusts providing car parking are classified as taxable persons for VAT purposes rather than public authorities acting under SLR.​

Legal and Financial Impact of The Ruling

This decision provides long-awaited clarity across the NHS. Nearly 70 other NHS Trusts had made or were considering similar appeals[iv], with around £100 million in VAT at stake. Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, those claims will now be reversed or withdrawn, and VAT payments will have to be made to HMRC.

For HMRC, the decision affirms its long-held view that income from hospital parking is a taxable commercial supply. For the NHS, it means new financial planning pressures, as parking revenue is an important source of income; often used to fund site maintenance or patient access improvements.

Implications for NHS Trusts

The ruling sends a definitive message: NHS bodies engaged in revenue-generating activities similar to private businesses cannot claim public authority exemption from VAT under Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, (the Principal VAT Directive). This will impact the operational policies of NHS trusts nationwide. Financial planners and legal advisors in NHS organisations must factor VAT considerations into all income-generating activities unless a clearly defined SLR exists. Trusts will likely review parking pricing and operations to mitigate the impact, while HMRC stands to recover substantial backdated VAT from institutions across the UK.​

The Precedent Set

Beyond its financial repercussions, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation v Revenue and Customs establishes an authoritative interpretation of how the VAT regime applies to public bodies undertaking commercial activities, closing the door to further appeals based on SLR status. This sets a clear framework for future taxation and competition rules for NHS and other public services in the UK.

© Lawrence Power 2025

[i] Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation v Revenue and Customs [2025] UKSC 37.

[ii] Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation v Revenue and Customs [2024] EWCA Civ 177.

[iii] [2025] UKSC 37.

[iv] [2025] UKSC 37 [1].

Earnings at the Bar Report 2025: A Summary

Each year, the legal profession reaffirms its commitment to merit, where skill and dedication are meant to be the sole architects of success. Yet the Bar Council’s latest Earnings at the Bar report for 2025 presents a contrasting reality, one where a persistent gender earnings gap challenges this ideal. This comprehensive analysis of the self-employed Bar reveals not just disparities in income, but a clear pattern that follows women from their first years in practice to the highest echelons of King’s Counsel.

The Data

Before examining the findings, it’s important to understand what the data represents. The Bar Council’s 2025 report focuses on gross fee income – the total earnings a barrister generates before deducting substantial professional expenses, which typically account for 20-40% of that figure. By using post-qualification experience (PQE) rather than year of call, the report provides a more accurate reflection of a barrister’s career based on years of active practice. 

The analysis deliberately uses median earnings- the middle point where half earn more and half earn less- to avoid skew from exceptionally high earners. This approach gives us a clearer picture of the typical barrister’s experience.

The Pattern

The central finding is depressingly unambiguous: at every stage of a self-employed barrister’s career, women earn less than men.

The gap begins early. Among the most junior barristers, women’s median earnings are 24% lower than men’s. This disparity is not a temporary hurdle; it widens significantly during the mid-career years, when practices are being solidified and reputations cemented. For barristers with 11 to 20 years of experience, women earn approximately 28% less.

Even at the pinnacle of the profession, the divide remains stark. Women who have attained the rank of King’s Counsel have a median income that is 28% lower than that of their male counterparts. This translates to a difference of £145,600 in median gross earnings between male KCs (£520,100) and female KCs (£374,500). Perhaps more telling is the gap among the very highest of earners: the top quarter of male silks earn over a million pounds on average, while the top quarter of female silks earn significantly less. 

The Trend

Perhaps the most concerning insight is the direction of travel. While median earnings have increased for all barristers over the past four years, they have risen more quickly for men. This means the proportional gap between men and women is not static; it is actively growing wider over time. Without intervention, the data suggests this trend will continue, entrenching inequality rather than eroding it.

The Variations 

While the gender earnings gap is present across all specialisms, its nature varies, offering clues to its underlying causes.

In Criminal Practice, the gap is most pronounced at the very start of a career but becomes the smallest of any area at KC level, standing at 9%. In Family law, where women make up almost two-thirds of practitioners, a consistent earnings disadvantage persists, including at silk level.

The most pronounced disparities are found in Commercial and Chancery law. Here, women are significantly underrepresented, comprising only 22% of practitioners. Their share of total earnings is even lower, at just 15%. For barristers with 21-25 years of experience in this field, the median earnings gap widens to a striking 43%, the largest identified in the report.

The Implications

These figures represent more than just annual income; they reflect systemic factors within the profession. They speak to patterns in work distribution, access to cases, and the internal dynamics of chambers that have not been addressed by the regulator.

The 2025 report is a powerful call of introspection and action. It urges chambers to move beyond general awareness and conduct their own detailed reviews of work allocation and earnings. The goal must be to identify and address the specific causes of disparity within each set, ensuring all members have equitable access to opportunities and the support needed to build successful, sustainable practices. 

The challenge laid out by the data is clear. The legal profession prides itself on logic, evidence, and justice. The report provides compelling evidence of an ongoing injustice within its own structure. The question now is whether the Bar will apply its formidable analytical and advocacy skills to solving this problem within its ranks. Addressing the earnings gap is not merely an issue of fairness; it is essential for upholding the profession’s integrity and securing its future challenge. 

 © Lawrence Power 2025

Reference

The Bar Council, Gross earnings by sex and practice area at the self-employed Bar (The General Council of the Bar, 2025). Accessible at:

https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/static/3bed67ba-8b7d-482b-b82feb4579022345/Bar-Cou ncil-gross-earnings-at-the-self-employed-Bar-report-2025.pdf 

The Future of Sporting Justice; Examining Felipe Massa v F1

Seventeen years after the “Crashgate” scandal shook Formula One, Felipe Massa has returned to the story in a way few expected. On November 20, 2025, the High Court in London handed down a ruling, deciding that the core of Massa’s lawsuit can proceed to trial. Mr Massa argues that the alleged mishandling of the affair cost him not only a world championship but millions in future earnings. At first glance, the case looks like a former driver trying to rewrite an old heartbreak. But beneath the headlines lies something far more consequential. The judge’s reasoning didn’t just keep a personal grievance alive; it quietly authorised a profound test of how far civil law can reach into the self-governed fortress of modern sport.

For casual fans, a quick recap. The 2008 Singapore Grand Prix was deliberately manipulated when Nelson Piquet Jr. crashed on instruction from his Renault team, causing a Safety Car period that helped his teammate win and derailed Massa’s own race. A year later, the truth emerged, long after the championship had been awarded. Massa lost that title by a single point to Lewis Hamilton. The episode became part of F1 lore, a settled controversy, or so it seemed.

Massa’s lawsuit insists that story is not over. Crucially, it does not formally seek to have the 2008 title overturned, something the court, in the same 2025 judgment (para 209-219), already signalled it would not do. Instead, the case now centres on a specific, surviving allegation. The High Court judge found that Massa has a “real prospect of success” (para 134-142) in proving that senior figures, notably, then-F1 CEO Bernie Ecclestone and then-FIA President Max Mosley, engaged in an “unlawful means conspiracy” (para 143) to conceal credible allegations about Crashgate in 2008 and prevent a timely investigation.

This distinction is the key to the case’s wider significance. The judge threw out Massa’s simpler claim that the FIA breached a contract with him directly. Instead, the ruling pivots on a more complex legal pathway: the judge found a real prospect that the FIA owed a duty (para 138-141) to its own member organisations to investigate serious fraud and that a conspiracy by individuals to breach that duty could form the basis of a claim for damages by a wronged athlete. In essence, Massa is not asking a judge to make him champion; he is asking the court to rule that a corrupt bargain in the sport’s backrooms has a legal price.

At stake, therefore, is not simply a trophy from a decade and a half ago, but a potentially revolutionary legal principle. The traditional assumption is that sport polices itself. By allowing this narrow, explosive allegation of a cover-up conspiracy to proceed, the High Court has effectively said (para 116-117) that the most egregious forms of administrative failure, those involving alleged collusion and concealment, may not be immune from legal scrutiny after all.

The implications ripple outward. If Massa succeeds at trial in proving the conspiracy the judge has allowed him to argue, governing bodies across world sport may be forced to confront uncomfortable questions. How robust must their internal whistleblower protocols be? What constitutes a “credible allegation” that demands immediate action? What legal duties do they owe, through their members, to the athletes in their care? Even a partial victory for Massa could pressure sports organisations into adopting more transparent, proactive procedures, not just because their rulebooks suggest it, but because the civil courts might now demand it.

The case also challenges the sacred idea of finality in sport. Results are meaningful because they are definitive. Yet, in a critical part of the 2025 ruling, the judge also decided that the six-year time limit for such a claim might not have started ticking until Massa could have reasonably discovered the alleged conspiracy, potentially resetting the clock (para 205-207) with Ecclestone’s 2023 interview. This means the consequences of a scandal, and the liability for mismanaging it, do not neatly expire once the trophy is handed over. The legal and financial risks of secrecy have just been amplified.

Beyond Formula One, the ruling sends a message to athletes everywhere. Historically, when controversies arose, doping cover-ups, corrupt officiating, safety failures, the assumption was that participants had little recourse beyond the sport’s own, often conflicted, internal channels. Massa’s lawsuit, having cleared this major procedural hurdle defined by the 2025 judgment, suggests that avenue may be wider than once thought. If officials fail in their core responsibilities through collusion and concealment, the matter may evolve from a mere sporting dispute into an actionable legal claim for conspiracy.

All of this places Formula One at a crossroads. The sport has grown into a global entertainment giant with billions in revenue. With that scale comes a level of legal and public accountability that an insular, discretionary model of governance may no longer withstand. The Massa case and the legal door the 2025 judgment has opened, accelerates that reckoning. It compels F1 to confront the gap between its glossy, high-tech public image and the opaque, “old boys’ club” decision-making that the lawsuit alleges, and the court has deemed triable, permitted the 2008 cover-up.

The final trial judgment, when it comes, will not rewrite history or declare a new champion. But the November 2025 ruling has already done the heavy lifting (para 220): it has defined the narrow, explosive legal pathway through which sporting justice might, for the first time, hold its most powerful architects directly accountable for an alleged conspiracy to bury the truth. In that sense, the Massa lawsuit is no longer about re-opening 2008. It is a landmark case about what sporting justice must look like in an era where the stakes; financial, reputational and ethical, have never been higher and where the courts are now prepared to listen.

© Lawrence Power 2025

Sources

The Future of Jury Trials: Understanding the Government’s Criminal Court Reforms

The criminal courts are in crisis, with a backlog of over 78,000 cases awaiting trial, a figure expected to rise to 100,000 by 2028. This means that a suspect charged with an offence today may not reach trial until 2030.  Not only is this an untenable position for defendants, but it has a profound impact on victims, with six out of ten victims of rape said to be withdrawing from prosecutions because of delays. On Tuesday, the government officially announced its proposed solution: restricting the right to a trial by jury, a move that has outraged many criminal practitioners. But what are the reforms, and what do they mean for defendants?

The Reforms

Under the current plan, crimes with sentences of less than three years are to be handled by a new, jury-less criminal court: the Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD). Only crimes with under 3 years sentence will be referred to the CCBD – nearly half of all current Crown Court cases – with only the most serious crimes – murder, rape, manslaughter, and a handful of “public interest” offences – guaranteed the safeguard of a trial by jury. According to the Ministry of Justice, these trials will be 20% faster than existing jury trials. 

This echoes the recently published report by Sir Brian Leveson earlier this year, which proposed  similar changes to the criminal courts. While Leveson’s recommendations were not without controversy, they stopped significantly short of what the government is now proposing.

His report proposed only a limited and targeted expansion of juryless trials: either by re-classifying some lower-level either-way offences, diverting them to an intermediate Bench Division or to the magistrates’ courts, and permitting judge-only trials only in a small category of exceptionally serious or complex cases, such as major fraud. Crucially, decisions about allocation were intended to be made on an offence-specific and case-specific basis, thereby preserving the principle that serious offences or those involving substantial factual or legal complexity should remain within the jury system. By contrast, the government’s proposal is far less holistic – removing jury trial from all offences with a maximum sentence below three years. This represents a sweeping departure from the traditional right to trial by jury, detached from the individual nature or complexity of the case. This is particularly troubling. The sentencing powers available to the CCBD are not insignificant, and a three-year period of detention and deprivation of liberty will invariably shape the course of a defendant’s life, not least through the enduring consequences of a criminal record.

The counter-argument is that while the proposed reforms are drastic, they are not without precedent. Across much of Europe, many criminal trials proceed without a jury. In countries such as Germany, Italy and the Czech Republic, for example, serious criminal cases are generally heard either by professional judges or panels combining judges and lay judges, rather than by a jury of peers. Domestically, the distinction between jury-trial courts and non-jury courts already exists: for many minor offences, defendants are tried before non-jury magistrates’ courts, which currently have sentencing powers of up to one year.

Conclusion

The government are correct to observe that dramatic change is needed to address the crisis in the criminal courts. Ultimately, there is little evidence that these reforms will meaningfully reduce the backlog they are said to address. The delays crippling the criminal courts are the product of long-term underinvestment, chronic shortages of court staff, judicial vacancies, ageing infrastructure and the closure of dozens of court buildings. Shifting thousands of cases into a new juryless tier does nothing to fix those structural deficits. Without more courtrooms, more sitting days, more judges and sustainable funding for legal aid, the pressures that created the backlog will persist regardless of the forum in which cases are tried.

This is not the first time that a reform to jury trials has been mooted. If the reforms pass, they open the door to future widening of juryless trials for a broader array of cases. The question remains – are juries a democratic luxury that we can no longer afford?

© Whitestone Chambers 2025

Sources:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5lxg2l0lqo

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/09/jury-trials-must-be-limited-to-save-criminal-justice-system-from-collapse-inquiry-finds

Deadly Heat Drives $300 Million Health Initiative at COP30.

As the world faces record-breaking deadly heatwaves, global philanthropies united as the Climate and Health Funders Coalition announced a landmark $300 million fund for climate health research and solutions at COP30 in Brazil. The coalition includes organisations such as the Gates Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, IKEA Foundation, and Wellcome Trust. They aim to accelerate solutions addressing extreme heat, air pollution and climate-sensitive infectious diseases. At the same time, the coalition supports the development of climate-resilient health systems through enhanced data integration and innovation.​

I have been mentioning in my lectures for a few years that the climate crisis is no longer solely an environmental issue; it has evolved into a public health emergency affecting at least 3.3 billion people globally. Rising temperatures are causing deadly heatwaves, worse air pollution and contribute to the spread of infectious diseases. Vulnerable groups, including children, the elderly, outdoor workers, and marginalised communities, face heightened risks. By focusing on these critical areas, the coalition’s fund aims to close existing funding gaps, scale effective interventions, expand data-driven decision-making, and strengthen health system resilience worldwide.​

Why the Coalition is Needed Now.

Climate change stands as one of the most significant threats to global health in the 21st century. The urgent formation of this coalition acknowledges the critical need to act swiftly. As climate and health experts warn, warming beyond 1.5°C risks unleashing severe climate impacts and extreme weather with consequences for human health[i].

The 2025 Lancet Countdown Report highlights alarming health impacts linked to climate change, noting that the rate of health-related deaths has surged 23% since the 1990s, reaching 546,000 annually. Additionally, an estimated 154,000 deaths in 2024 were linked to air pollution from wildfire smoke[ii].

At COP30, the Belém Health Action Plan was launched to encourage countries to monitor and coordinate climate-related health policies. Its core focus areas include strengthening disease surveillance and early warning systems, building climate-resilient health infrastructure, and investing in technology and equitable solutions. The initiative prioritises populations in regions such as Asia, Africa, and Latin America, where climate change impacts are already severe[iii].

Voices from Global Leaders.

Ethel Maciel, special envoy for health and a lead architect of the Belém Health Action Plan, proposed three pillars to integrate health into the climate agenda[iv]:

  • Improving monitoring by integrating climate and health data and enhancing reporting of climate-linked diseases.
  • Developing resilient systems and training healthcare professionals to identify and treat impacts such as dehydration and cardiac stress.
  • Fostering research and innovation to create heat-resistant medicines and vaccines.

Additionally, Naveen Rao, Senior Vice President of Health at the Rockefeller Foundation, emphasised that “climate change is the gravest health threat of our time, and no single organisation or country can tackle it alone”[v]. In my opinion, this emphasises the vital importance of global cooperation and combined resources. The coalition’s collaborative model provides a robust framework for accelerating impactful solutions that no single entity could achieve independently.

Looking Ahead: Urgency and Opportunity.

Climate action is now inseparable from public health action. The world and its leaders must urgently advance both to safeguard billions of lives. Adaptation is no longer a distant necessity but a pressing reality. The coalition’s $300 million commitment, aligned with the Belém Health Action Plan, offers a promising path to build resilient health systems, catalyse innovative research, and mobilise further investments globally. Protecting human health in the face of climate change demands urgent and coordinated global action.

For lawyers, this may open an examination of what legal steps can be taken to protect the public’s health and wellbeing.

© Lawrence Power 2025

[i] Wellcome,‘Climate and Health Funders Coalition’ <https://wellcome.org/engagement-and-advocacy/advocacy-and-partnerships/climate-health-funders-coalition> accessed on 17 November 2025.

[ii] Lancet Countdown, ‘The 2025 Global Report of the Lancet Countdown’, 2025, <https://lancetcountdown.org/2025-report/#tab-1> accessed on 17 November 2025.

[iii] Studyiq, ‘Climate and Health Funders Coalition’, 2025, <https://www.studyiq.com/articles/climate-and-health-funders-coalition/> accessed on 17 November 2025.

[iv] United Nations, ‘COP30: Climate crisis is a health crisis’, 2025’ <https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/11/1166369> accessed on 17 November 2025.

[v] The Rockefeller Foundation, ‘Global Philanthropies Commit $300 Million To Accelerate Solutions on Climate and Health’, 2025, <https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/global-philanthropies-commit-300-million-to-accelerate-solutions-on-climate-and-health/> accessed on 17 November 2025.