POV: IP strategies needn’t be complex or costly

In the final session of the day at HGF’s Brand and Design Conference earlier this month, I sat down with colleagues Harpreet Dhaliwal and John Johnston and Emma Reeve of Centrica to talk IP strategies. Conflicting demands within established organisations or a lack of IP knowledge within newer businesses, can often lead to a reactive approach to IP.

When an IP issue does arise – be that the need to clear and secure registered protection for a new brand, or monitor and tackle encroaching third parties – having a strategy in place in advance can help ensure that these issues are handled consistently and cost effectively.

One of the key points of discussion on the day was retaining sight of the bigger picture, i.e. the core commercial goals of the business. As Harpreet said, if the plan is to shed ancillary brands and move towards a more simplified brand architecture, maintaining and enforcing legacy sub-brand rights wouldn’t seem the best use of resource. Having a strategy in place that sets out the business’s IP rights linked to how these tie in with the business’s commercial plans can assist in making judgement calls about where and when to act, and spend.

On budgets, Emma shared her view on demonstrating the real impact of enforcement activities to stakeholders to create buy in. For example, if a Board can see that the spend on an online brand enforcement tool and associated actions led to a specified number of counterfeit products being removed from sale, this typically leads to a greater willingness to invest in IP and its enforcement. Again, putting guidelines in place around when a particular form of infringement requires a response, and the degree of severity of that response, can avoid a scatter gun approach – which is typically trickier to measure the impact of.

In terms of organisations in their earlier stages, John noted that understanding what IP rights the business currently has, by way of an IP overview or audit, and forming a road map as to how these might evolve can provide clarity and structure. Such an exercise often sheds light on valuable unregistered rights such as goodwill, unregistered design rights, copyright and trade secrets; all of which can be leveraged in fund raising. Plus, being clear on the business’s IP priorities allows for better budgeting and can focus meandering minds.

That said, the panel appreciated that in reality best laid plans often need to go awry, or at least require deviation in some instances. Having an IP strategy in place needn’t be cumbersome, complicated or costly. Rather, a good IP strategy should work as a blueprint to defer to when the push and pulls of operating a business are at play. It can help bring competing interests and opposing voices back to basic principles. And should it become clear that particular circumstances require a different approach, why that’s the case can be communicated against the backdrop of the usual, with the potential to adapt the strategy going forwards if need be.

This article was prepared by Partner & Trade Mark Attorney Lauren Somers.