Real cases of Business IP issues

There are many real cases where a business has faced litigation, unexpected costs, or serious commercial disruption because it could not establish that it owned the intellectual property (IP) in its branding, logo, or other creative work.

The particularly important issue is that paying a designer or branding agency to create a logo does not necessarily mean the business owns the copyright or intellectual property tied to it.

Under the international intellectual property framework, brands — including trade marks, logos, slogans, and related identifiers — are protected as intellectual property rights that are initially owned by the creator of the brand, unless that right has been validly assigned to another party.

This principle, recognised in systems such as the TRIPS Agreement and reflected in WIPO guidance, means that the original creator holds the exclusive right to use, licence, or transfer the brand globally, subject to national registration and enforcement rules in each jurisdiction.

International law does not grant automatic global ownership; rather, it establishes that unless a transfer of rights occurs through a legally binding assignment, the creator retains the bundle of rights — including the right to prevent unauthorised use, to licence the brand, and to enforce those rights against infringement, even when the creator has been commissioned and paid to create the assets in question by a client and has failed to assign the IP to the paying client.

This matters enormously when selling a business. A buyer may be acquiring a brand worth millions, but if the seller cannot prove that the underlying IP was properly assigned, the buyer could be acquiring a business with a potentially significant legal defect.

1. Innocent Drinks
The strongest UK example involving an actual acquisition

Innocent Drinks
UK · Coca-Cola acquisition · High Court judgment 2015

The trigger: The original branding agency claimed rights to Innocent's famous 'Dude' logo, with the dispute emerging around the time of Coca-Cola's investment.

Innocent commissioned Deepend, a design agency, to create its branding in 1999. The commercial agreement provided for copyright to transfer to Innocent, but neither party could produce a signed version. Years later, the rights allegedly retained by the agency were acquired following its liquidation. A successor company challenged Innocent's ownership of its logo.

Crucially, the High Court recorded that the first assertion of copyright ownership emerged in March 2009, following publicity about the imminent sale to Coca-Cola.

The consequences were significant:

• Innocent faced a formal challenge to its brand ownership.

• In 2012, the European trade mark authority initially invalidated a registration of its logo.

• Innocent had to litigate to establish its entitlement to the copyright.

• In 2015, the High Court ultimately ruled in Innocent's favour, finding that it had an equitable interest in the copyright.

What is verified: A missing signed IP assignment led to a real dispute over a valuable brand during the period of Coca-Cola's acquisition, which potentially cost several hundred thousand pounds in legal fees.

What is not verified: That Coca-Cola reduced its purchase price, withheld payment, or abandoned any part of the transaction.

2. SweetWater Brewing
A $366 million sale followed by a logo ownership lawsuit

United States · $366m acquisition · Federal copyright litigation

The trigger: An artist who created the company's signature trout logo for $500 and free beer later disputed the rights associated with its use after an acquisition.

In 1996, designer Scott Fuss created the distinctive rainbow trout logo for SweetWater Brewing. The parties never executed a written agreement defining copyright ownership or licensing rights.

Twenty-four years later, the brewery was sold to Aphria for $366 million.

Figures recorded in the court's account

After the sale, Fuss raised concerns about the transfer and continued use of his artwork. He brought legal proceedings involving copyright infringement and the interpretation of the original informal arrangement.

In a 2026 federal court order, the judge largely denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment, allowing substantial disputed issues to proceed.

What is verified: A company sold for $366 million faced litigation over a logo commissioned decades earlier without a written IP agreement. The litigation directly concerned the use of that artwork following the sale.

What is not verified: That the buyer knew about the problem before completion, that the sale price was reduced, or that the designer ultimately won the copyright dispute.

3. Dr. Martens
The freelance designer who transferred logo rights to another footwear company

Dr. Martens
UK · High Court 2003–2004 · Logo ownership dispute

The trigger: The Company had obtained its logo through an advertising agency, but the actual freelance designer had never signed away his copyright.

The designer, Ross Evans, created a combined logo in 1988 through an advertising agency, which Dr. Martens paid.

The agency later assigned copyright to Dr. Martens. However, there was a fundamental problem: the agency had not obtained the legal copyright from Evans.

In 2002, Evans purported to assign the copyright to Raben Footwear, an Australian footwear company, for approximately £12,000.

This created a direct threat to a valuable international brand.

The High Court confirmed that Evans had initially held legal copyright, but ruled that Dr. Martens had the beneficial ownership and was entitled to the rights.

Why this is significant: Even an assignment signed by a branding agency may be insufficient if the actual freelance creator never transferred the relevant rights to that agency.

There is no verified evidence here of a business sale being derailed. It is, however, a powerful example of an ownership defect creating litigation over an established brand.

4. Kilnworx — a business asked to pay £5,000 to keep using its own logo

This is a smaller but especially useful UK example.

Kilnworx Climbing Centre commissioned Purple Penguin Design to create its logos. The arrangement was verbal, without an express copyright ownership provision.

A company connected with one of Kilnworx's directors paid the designer's invoice. After the director resigned, he offered Kilnworx continued rights to use the logos for £5,000.

When Kilnworx refused, copyright rights were assigned to the director's company, Atelier Eighty Two, which subsequently brought infringement proceedings.

The court ruled in Kilnworx's favour, finding that the copyright was beneficially owned by the climbing centre.

The lesson: A business can be threatened with having to pay again for its own branding when the commissioning and ownership arrangements were never properly documented.