IP Ingredients: Winter Case Law Review 2025

A seasonal tasting of recent IP decisions across the UK and EU.  Including notes on what brand owners, creatives, R&D teams and food and drink businesses should take away.

Patents

Onego Bio / VTT v The Every Company / Clara Foods Co.

The start of 2025 saw the long-awaited outcome of the opposition and appeal proceedings which reviewed the validity of Impossible Food’s European patent for meat substitute products.  As reported here, in order to establish sufficiency of disclosure, Impossible was forced to amend its main claim from a product to a method of making a meat substitute, as well as significantly restrict the number of flavour precursor compounds used in its production. The decision sent a clear reminder to patent applicants that the scope of patent protection awarded must be commensurate with the effects that can be reasonably expected from the experimental data presented in the application as filed.

In the latter part of 2025 a new battle has emerged in the alt protein space, this time between two producers of alternative egg protein: US firm The Every Company (founded as Clara Foods) and Onego Bio, a spin off of the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.  Onego Bio produces precision-fermented albumen (“Bioalbumen®”) using the fungal strain Trichoderma reesei.  The Every Company has two core products, ovalbumin, marketed as “OvoPro”, and ovomucoid, marketed as “OvoBoost”, which it produces using yeast.  Both companies have received FDA approval for use of their products in food through Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) notifications.

The Every Company has secured US patent 12,096,784 (US’784) with claims directed to an ingredient composition comprising a recombinant ovomucoid protein (rOVD) defined by certain structural and functional properties.  The company also has a granted European patent, EP4017287 (EP’287) in the name of Clara Foods. This patent claims a food item comprising recombinant ovalbumin (rOVA) as the sole egg white protein, in an amount of 2-25 wt%.  The European claim is therefore broad in scope since it does not define the rOVA by its sequence or other structural or functional properties.

These patents are at the centre of a bitter dispute between the companies. In September 2025 Onego Bio filed a lawsuit seeking Declaratory judgement of invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement against US’784.  In parallel, the VTT filed an opposition against EP’287.  VTT have asserted that the patent claims are invalid on the grounds of a lack of novelty, a lack of inventive step, insufficiency of disclosure and added matter (the extension of the claimed subject-matter beyond the content of the application as originally filed.)

VTT’s inventive step argument centres on the alleged prior disclosure of recombinant ovalbumin and its use in baking, including in a number of webinars delivered by employees of VTT.  VTT also points to the GRAS notice in which the patentee claimed that  rOVA is chemically and structurally equivalent to natural ovalbumin.  In the absence of any technical benefit conferred by the recombinant protein, VTT argues that it would have been obvious to a skilled person to provide recombinant ovalbumin as a mere alternative to natural egg protein.  This raises an interesting question about the inventiveness of using alternative proteins and fats in food, as the mere replacement of an animal-based product for an engineered or synthetic equivalent may be considered obvious in the absence of an unexpected technical effect.

VTT further alleges that the patent lacks sufficient information to prepare recombinant ovalbumin, such as the nucleic acid sequence of ovalbumin,  details of the expression construct and information necessary to express the protein in a host other than Pichia Pastoris.  Whether this attack succeeds will depend on whether the EPO’s opposition division finds that any experimental details missing from the patent are part of the common general knowledge, or whether their omission places an undue burden on the skilled person to put the invention into effect across the scope of the claim.

Clara Foods has until 25 January 2026 to file its reply to the opposition.  However, with further rounds of written submissions, an oral hearing and a possible appeal ahead,  we are unlikely to see a resolution to the dispute, at least in Europe, for quite some time.

Key Takeaways: The alt protein field is still relatively new and, as demonstrated by EP’287, some companies have been able to secure broad claims for their foundation technology.  We may therefore see an increasing number of challenges to such claims as the field develops and competition increases.  The two parties involved in this particular dispute had reportedly been in discussions about a possible merger only a few months prior to the opposition and lawsuit being filed, serving as a reminder that relationships can quickly turn sour and that IP rights must be protected during collaborations.  Whether or not the EPO finds merit in VTT’s opposition remains to be seen.  However, The Every Company wisely filed a divisional application in Europe which it can fall back on should EP’287 ultimately be revoked.

Copyright and Passing Off

Martin and another v Bodegas San Huberto SA and others [2025] EWHC 1827 (IPEC)

This Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) decision, concerned allegations of copyright infringement, moral rights infringement and passing off.  The dispute arose when Argentinian winery Bodegas San Huberto (BSH) and UK Importer GM Drinks Ltd (GM Drinks) used wine bottle labels allegedly copying the distinctive black-and white line drawings of British visual artist Shantell Martin MBE. The third defendant, Mr Patch, is a director of GM Drinks.

Martin created the original artwork in 2017 for a solo exhibition in New York.  Copyright was later assigned to Found the Found LLC in 2021.  Between 2018 and 2020, BSH produced wine labels incorporating similar artistic elements, which GM Drinks imported and sold in the UK.  Three label designs were used sequentially; the first was closest to Martin’s work, while the second and third were modified versions.

The court examined several issues:

• whether copyright subsisted in Martin’s work under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA)
• whether the first wine label copied a substantial part of that work and if later labels infringed by derivation.
• whether passing off occurred through misrepresentation linked to Martin’s artistic style and associated goodwill; and finally,
• whether the UK importer and its director could be held jointly liable as tortfeasors.

In its findings, the court concluded that copyright subsisted in Martins’ work. Furthermore, that the first wine label reproduced a substantial part of Martin’s original artwork, which amounted to copyright infringement. The second and third labels were considered sufficiently different. As a result, GM Drinks was found liable for issuing copies and for importing, possessing in the course of business, selling and offering for sale products bearing the first label.

Passing off was established only in relation to the first label as Martin’s distinctive style had goodwill and the design created a misrepresentation that the products were associated with Martin. Again the second and third labels were found to be sufficiently dissimilar to Martins’ work to avoid passing off. Consequently, GM Drinks was also found liable for passing off in relation to products bearing the first label only.

As to joint tortfeasorship, it was concluded that BSH and Mr Patch were jointly liable with GM Drinks for copyright infringement of the First Label. However, given the circumstances, neither were found to be a joint tortfeasor for passing off.

Key Takeaways: As an importer, companies are not immune from infringement proceedings.  Instead of relying solely on the assurances given by the supplier, it would serve importers to conduct their own due diligence and clear any IP that is on products to be imported into the UK.  IP rights are jurisdictional, so even if the due diligence indicates that you can proceed in one country this does not mean you are clear to do so in another. Importers may also want to include warranties in contracts with suppliers to ensure that they have recourse should they suddenly find themselves defending an infringement proceeding.

Trade Marks

Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd [2025] EWHC Civ 1341

Those that read the Summer Case Law Review 2025 (IP Ingredients Summer Case Law Review 2025) may recall this case.  In the first instance decision, IPEC upheld the validity of Babek’s figurative trade mark for “Gold oval with embossed BABEK writing.  Colour Claimed: Gold, black”.  This was appealed to the Court of Appeal, who were asked to reconsider whether the mark met the legal requirements for clarity and precision under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Sieckmann criteria.  Iceland Foods argued that the combination of the pictorial representation and written description was ambiguous and lacked the necessary specificity, particularly in relation to colour and the embossed effect.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Iceland’s appeal and confirmed the validity of the BABEK mark.  It held that the mark, as registered, was a single, clear and precise sign, and that the written description did not undermine the clarity of the visual representation.  The Court emphasised that the Sieckmann criteria do not require exhaustive technical detail, such as Pantone references, and that a practical approach should be taken to trade mark descriptions.  The decision provides reassurance for brand owners that historic registrations, which may not meet today’s stricter graphical representation standards, can still be valid if they are sufficiently clear and precise in context.

Key Takeaways:This judgement reinforces the importance of ensuring trade mark applications are clear and consistent, but also confirms that courts will adopt a pragmatic approach to descriptions accompanying figurative marks.  Brand owners should focus on presenting a single, unambiguous sign and avoid unnecessary complexity in descriptions.

Comité interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne and another v EUIPO, T-239/23, EU:T:2025:638

The General Court recently annulled the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision to allow registration of the word mark NERO CHAMPAGNE for wine and related services, upholding the opposition brought by the Champagne industry bodies.

Nero Lifestyle Srl applied to register NERO CHAMPAGNE as an EU trade mark for wine that complies with the Champagne PDO specification, as well as for services promoting Champagne. The Champagne bodies opposed the application, arguing that even compliant use could exploit the reputation of the Champagne PDO or mislead consumers.

The EUIPO Board of Appeal had previously relied on a “limitation theory”—the idea that if the trade mark specification is limited to PDO-compliant goods, there is no risk of exploitation or misleading use.  The General Court rejected this approach, holding that every case must be assessed on its facts and that even compliant goods can give rise to problems.

In its decision the General Court concluded that:

• Including a PDO in a trade mark is not automatically prohibited, but it is subject to close scrutiny. The mere fact that a product complies with the PDO specification does not guarantee that a mark will be registrable.
• Word marks can mislead consumers. In this case, “NERO CHAMPAGNE” could suggest a new variety or colour of Champagne (such as “black Champagne”), even though Champagne can only be white or rosé. The Court found that Italian-speaking consumers might believe “nero” refers to a grape variety or colour, which is not permitted under the Champagne PDO.
• Evidence of consumer perception is crucial. The Court rejected arguments that a family of “NERO” marks would dispel confusion, as there was no evidence that consumers would recognise such a family or that it would prevent misleading impressions.

Key Takeaways: This decision highlights the importance of respecting PDO specifications in trade mark strategy. Brand owners should ensure that their marks do not mislead consumers or exploit the reputation of PDOs, even when used on compliant products. Careful planning and legal advice are essential to avoid pitfalls and protect your brand.

Savencia SA v EUIPO, T-481/24, EU:T:2025:1096

The General Court annulled the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision regarding the registration of a three-dimensional cheese shape as an EU trade mark. The dispute involved Hofmeister Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH & Co. KG’s application for a cheese-shaped mark and Savencia SA’s opposition based on its own earlier national three-dimensional cheese marks.

Hofmeister applied to register a three-dimensional cheese shape for dairy products, including cheese, butter, and cream. Savencia opposed the application, relying on three earlier national marks, each representing a distinctive cheese shape. The opposition was based on the risk of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation, which requires a global assessment of similarity and distinctiveness.

The EUIPO Board of Appeal found that, although the products were identical or similar, Savencia’s earlier marks had only weak distinctiveness. It concluded that the essential features of Savencia’s cheese shapes—such as the flower-like form and central hole—were either common in the sector or dictated by technical functions like portioning or maturation. As a result, the Board held that even small differences between the shapes were enough to avoid confusion, and it rejected the opposition.

In its findings the General Court concluded:

• Distinctiveness is critical for shape marks. The General Court held that the Board of Appeal erred by failing to recognise the minimum level of distinctiveness required for a registered national mark. Even if a shape is common or has technical features, registration implies at least some inherent distinctiveness.
• Technical and decorative features do not confer distinctiveness. The Court agreed that features dictated by technical function or typical decoration—such as the flower shape for portioning or a central hole for maturation—are not inherently distinctive. However, it found that the Board of Appeal went too far in treating the entire shape as lacking distinctiveness.
• Global assessment must respect national registrations. The Court emphasised that the validity of a national mark cannot be challenged in EUIPO opposition proceedings. The Board must recognise the minimum distinctiveness of national marks and factor this into the confusion analysis.

Key Takeaways: This decision highlights the importance of distinctiveness in three-dimensional trade marks for food products. Brand owners should ensure that their product shapes are not purely functional or generic and should be ready to demonstrate how their designs stand out in the market. Careful planning and evidence gathering are essential to protect your brand and succeed in trade mark oppositions.

For any questions relating to the above, please contact the authors, Tanya Waller twaller@hgf.com, Jennifer Bailey jbailey@hgf.com,

This article was written by Partner and Patent Attorney Jennifer Bailey and Partner and Trade Mark Attorney Tanya Waller