EIP Trademark team recognised by WTR 1000 2021

No items found.
​
February 16, 2021
No items found.
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

Seriously deficient disclosure process not sufficient to reopen costs order - Cabo v MGA
08 April 2026
A High Court decision highlighting the consequences of inadequate disclosure searches under PD57AD and reaffirming that costs orders are final, even where later failures come to light.
​
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.
​