Just 21% of UK SMEs say they use registered trade marks, according to the Intellectual Property Office’s latest survey of SME intellectual property awareness, while 30% report using no form of IP protection at all.

Set against the government’s estimate of around 5.7 million private-sector businesses, that suggests millions of UK firms may be operating without registered trade mark protection for their brands. At the same time, the register is becoming more competitive. The IPO received 173,180 trade mark applications in 2024, up 5.8% on the previous year and the second-highest total in its history, while registrations increased 9.1% to 156,596. For founders, the implication is straightforward: as more businesses secure exclusive rights to their brands, delaying registration increases the risk of conflicts, costly disputes and, in some cases, being forced to rebrand. For businesses considering registration, Trama, a full-service IP law firm, explains the UK registration process and common application pitfalls in its guide to UK trade mark registration.

Why aren’t more UK SMEs registering their brands?

The evidence suggests the problem is misunderstanding rather than indifference. While 79% of UK SMEs claim to be familiar with the term “intellectual property”, only 26% demonstrate a high level of understanding when tested on how common intellectual property rights apply in practice. Awareness is relatively high, but practical knowledge remains much lower. One of the most common misconceptions is that registering a company with Companies House also protects the business name as a trade mark. It does not. Company incorporation and trade mark registration are separate legal processes serving different purposes. Companies House helps prevent identical or very similar company names from being incorporated, but it does not grant exclusive rights to use a brand name in the marketplace. Those rights generally come through trade mark registration.

For founders, the distinction matters. A business can legally incorporate under one name yet still face trade mark disputes or even be required to rebrand if another business holds earlier trade mark rights. This is explained in more detail in this guide which outlines the differences between company names and trade marks, and when separate registration is needed.

Why timely brand registration matters for UK SMEs

Competition for registered trade marks is increasing. Nearly half of all UK trade mark applications now come from overseas applicants. In 2024, UK-based businesses filed 90,480 applications, accounting for 52.2% of all filings. As both domestic and international businesses register more brands, the pool of available names becomes increasingly crowded.

That makes timing critical. In practice, the UK trade mark system rewards businesses that register early. An application can be refused because of an earlier registered mark, even where the applicant has never come across the other business. As the register becomes more crowded, delaying an application increases the likelihood of encountering an existing right and the risk of costly rebranding.

Businesses that have not registered are not necessarily without protection. The common law action of passing off can protect established goodwill, and trade mark applications filed in bad faith may be challenged. However, relying on these rights is typically more complex and expensive, requiring evidence of reputation, trading history and customer recognition. A registered trade mark provides a clearer legal foundation, making it easier to enforce rights, deter infringement and resolve disputes before they escalate.

What trade mark registration actually involves, and what it costs

For many SME owners, the idea of registering a trade mark feels more daunting than it is. In the UK, the process runs through the Intellectual Property Office and follows a fairly predictable path, even if the legal judgement behind it takes some care to get right.

The starting point is a clearance search of the existing register, checking not just for identical marks but for similar ones that cover the same or related goods and services. This step is often skipped by business owners filing on their own, and it is the single most common cause of later disputes. A name can be entirely free to trade under and still infringe on an earlier registered mark in the same sector, particularly where the goods or services overlap even loosely.

Once a name clears the search, the application itself requires selecting the correct trade mark classes. The UK system uses 45 international classes covering different categories of goods and services, and a business must file in every class relevant to what it actually sells or plans to sell. Filing in too few classes leaves gaps in protection; filing in too many adds unnecessary cost. This is one of the areas where legal judgement matters most, since the classes chosen need to reflect not just the current business but a reasonable view of where it is heading.

On cost, the IPO’s own filing fees start at £170 for a single class online, with £50 for each additional class. That is a modest outlay set against the value most SMEs place on their brand, and considerably less than the cost of a forced rebrand after a dispute. Where a business uses a solicitor or trade mark attorney to handle the search, classification and filing, professional fees are added on top, but this is often worthwhile given how much of the process depends on judgement calls rather than mechanical steps.

Timing matters here too. Once filed, an application is examined by the IPO, published for a two-month opposition period during which third parties can object, and then, assuming no objection succeeds, registered. The full process typically takes around four months from filing to registration, though contested applications can take considerably longer. Businesses sometimes assume protection begins only once the certificate is issued, but the filing date itself establishes priority. This means that in a dispute with a business that files later, an earlier filing date generally wins, even if registration is still pending.

For SMEs weighing whether registration is worth the administrative effort, the practical answer is that the process is neither long nor especially expensive relative to the risk it addresses. The bigger cost, in time and money, tends to fall on businesses that wait until a dispute forces the issue, at which point the options are narrower and the legal fees considerably higher.

Register before your brand becomes valuable

The best time to think about trade mark protection is before a business and brand gains traction, not after. Search the trade mark register before committing to a name, identify the goods and services that genuinely reflect your business, and file an application before your brand becomes worth copying. Many common mistakes, such as choosing a descriptive name or selecting the wrong classes, involve legal judgement rather than simply searching a database. For most businesses, registering a trade mark is a relatively small investment compared with the cost of rebranding after a dispute.

A trade mark is often one of a company’s most valuable intellectual property assets, yet many UK SMEs still leave theirs unregistered. The value of intellectual property often grows alongside the business itself, making early protection increasingly important. With a new UK trade mark application filed roughly every three minutes, the opportunity to secure a distinctive name narrows every day. Registering early is no longer just a legal precaution; it is increasingly a commercial advantage.

The mutual said it continued to invest and offer customers good value in a highly competitive market

Margin pressure and investment has prompted a dip in half year net interest income and underlying operating profits at Newcastle Building Society, though bosses are confident in “robust” results.

The country’s seventh largest building society had anticipated the movement set out in results for the six months to the end of June, in which net interest income was £51m – down on £48.3m in the same period as last year. That came despite net mortgage growth of £235m, meaning total mortgage balances of £5.9bn, and growth in savings balances to £6.2bn from £5.9bn.

The mutual cited a “highly competitive retail market” and increased wholesale funding costs which over deposits and drawdowns from Bank of England funding schemes. It meant underlying operating profit fell to £14.9m, compared to £15.9m, which was said to have been partly offset by modest growth in other income. Meanwhile pre-tax profits were up at £15.1m, compared to £10.8m in the same period last year.

Chief executive Andrew Haigh said the mutual had continued to contend with a fast-moving and sometimes uncertain external environment but that it had continued to invest – including in digital services and the group’s latest branch in Guisborough – and offer good value to savers and borrowers. He said the focus had been on building resilience and creating long-term strength.

The group’s outsourced savings management operation – Newcastle Strategic Solutions – contributed £27.9m of client income from savings during the six months, broadly flat compared with the same period last year. That business is undergoing a significant transformation requiring investment to bring new technology and capabilities to clients.

Mr Haigh said: “The first half of 2026 has demonstrated the resilience of our business model and the continued importance of our purpose-led approach. Despite an evolving external environment and continued global and UK political uncertainty, we have remained focused on supporting our members, investing in our communities and strengthening the long-term sustainability of the group.

“We will continue to build on this momentum in the second half of the year, with a clear focus on long term member value, supporting the sustainability of the communities we serve and maintaining the high levels of service and value our members expect. As always, I would like to thank our members for their continued support and our colleagues for their ongoing commitment and dedication.”

This article was written by

Follow

The sale of Occombe Farm to Greendale Farm Shop has completed

A former family attraction and farm site on the edge of Paignton has been sold to the owners of an Exeter-based farm shop for an undisclosed sum.

Greendale has acquired Occombe Farm from Torbay Council and is now planning to make “significant investment” to reopen it, it said. The site has been shut since the end of last year when the Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust went into liquidation, with the local authority taking over the maintenance of Occombe and the surrounding land.

Greendale said the acquisition marked “the beginning of an exciting new chapter” for the site.

In the short term, Greendale is planning to reopen some of Occombe’s most popular features, including the farm kitchen, indoor play barn and nature trail.

These facilities will be operated by local leisure specialists, headed up by Thomas Shwenn and his team, who have strong ties to the Bay.

Greendale is also proposing to create new retail and leisure facilities at the site in the longer term. It is understood the redevelopment of Occombe could create some 200 jobs.

Rowan Carter, chief executive of Greendale Group, said: “We look forward to restoring Occombe Farm to its former place at the heart of the Torbay community. Greendale will work closely with local specialists to deliver a site that Torbay can be proud of. We’re also delighted that familiar faces will be returning, with the farm kitchen and play barn staffed by former Occombe employees.

“We are excited to develop this partnership and are confident that Tom Shwenn and his team will deliver the Occombe Farm family experience that so many people remember fondly.”

Mr Shwenn asked the people of Torbay to “bear with us” as he and his team “bring the vision to life”.

He said: “I’m extremely excited to be taking on the operation of Occombe Farm and to have the opportunity to bring this incredible site back to life. We have a long-term vision for Occombe that will see it become one of the South West’s leading family destinations, while staying true to what has always made it so special.

“Knowing what an amazing place Occombe is, and how much it has meant to generations of local families, is something I’m incredibly passionate about. Our aim is to bring that back while investing in the future and creating a destination that benefits the whole local community.”

Australia’s benchmark stock index closed narrowly higher Friday, capping a strong week that pushed the S&P/ASX 200 close to a five-month high, as easing domestic inflation and a powerful overnight rally in U.S. technology stocks helped offset a pullback from the session’s earlier highs.

The S&P/ASX 200 finished up 0.10%, adding 9.3 points to close at 8,977.0, trading well below its intraday high after touching gains of as much as 1.03% earlier in the session. The pullback was most pronounced in the materials sector, which surged as much as 3.13% in early trade before easing back to close up 1.49%, part of a pattern of outsized daily swings that has characterized mining and resources stocks over the past eight trading sessions, according to analysis from Marketindex.com.au’s Kerry Sun. Despite the late-session fade, the ASX 200 closed the week 2.5% higher and trading close to a five-month high.

The rally traced its roots to a powerful overnight session on Wall Street. Major U.S. benchmarks pushed higher through the session and finished near their best levels, with the technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite jumping 2.7% to snap a six-day losing streak as investors returned to the artificial intelligence trade that has driven much of the market’s gains over the past year. The S&P 500 climbed 1.66% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average added 1.19% in the same session. Microsoft was the standout performer, surging more than 15% and adding roughly $450 billion in market capitalization in a single day, a record one-day gain in dollar value for any publicly traded company. Chipmakers broadly participated in the rebound as well, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index gaining 8%.

The overnight strength on Wall Street flowed directly into Australian trading. Futures markets had pointed to a sharply higher open in Sydney, with September SPI futures settling up 77 points, or 0.86%, at 9,012.5 ahead of the local session, after the ASX 200 had ended Thursday’s session 0.78% lower at 8,967.7 points, snapping what had been a winning streak for the index.

Domestic economic data released earlier in the week also contributed to the positive tone across Australian markets. A cooler-than-expected consumer price index reading published Wednesday eased some investor concerns about the pace of future interest rate moves from the Reserve Bank of Australia, adding to a generally constructive backdrop for equities heading into the week’s close.

Commodity markets showed a mixed picture that shaped individual sector performance within the index. Gold prices climbed sharply overnight, with futures rising 1.65% to $4,102.30 an ounce, a move that boosted sentiment toward gold miners including Evolution Mining and Newmont Corporation heading into Friday’s session. Iron ore prices also firmed, aided in part by strike threats affecting BHP Group’s operations, even as underlying demand signals out of China remained comparatively weak. Oil prices moved in the opposite direction, with Brent crude falling 16% since July 23 and closing down 1.88% at $89.03 a barrel in the most recent session, while U.S. crude dropped 1.03% to $83.59, a decline that weighed on energy-focused stocks including Santos and Woodside Energy Group even as both companies have continued to draw some support from concerns about ongoing Middle East shipping risks.

Lithium stocks drew renewed analyst attention during the week following quarterly production updates. Brokerage Bell Potter maintained its speculative buy rating on Vulcan Energy Resources while trimming its price target to $4.50 from $6.10, and held its hold rating on Pilbara Minerals while cutting its target to $4.70 from $6.15. Commenting on Pilbara Minerals specifically, Bell Potter said the company “will generate substantial earnings and cash flow with the restart of the 200ktpa Ngungaju processing plant” at current lithium market prices, while noting that its P2000 and Colina development studies “are being progressed, providing substantial organic growth optionality in markets with strong underlying EV and BESS-led long term demand fundamentals.”

Longer-term bond yields presented a potential headwind for growth-oriented stocks heading into the new trading week. The U.S. 30-year Treasury yield reached its highest level in 19 years during the week, a development that analysts said could constrain further gains in growth-sensitive sectors of the market if the trend continues, even as the immediate market reaction to this week’s data and earnings news remained broadly positive.

With the ASX 200 now trading above levels implied by at least two previously stated year-end forecasts from market strategists, analysts have begun flagging a more complex outlook heading into the second half of the year, noting that earnings expectations for sectors outside of mining and banking have started to tighten even as those two dominant sectors have continued to anchor the index’s overall performance. Wood Mackenzie separately forecast that continued turbulence in Middle East oil markets could help lift global upstream oil and gas free cash flow to $495 billion in 2026, provided Brent crude prices average around $90 per barrel over the course of the year, underscoring how closely tied energy sector earnings outlooks remain to the trajectory of the ongoing geopolitical situation.

With a busy stretch of corporate earnings and economic data still ahead, investors are likely to watch closely whether the current wave of positive momentum from U.S. technology stocks can be sustained into the new trading week, particularly as questions persist about bond yield pressure, energy price volatility and the durability of the artificial intelligence-driven rally that powered Thursday night’s rebound on Wall Street.

The cash-strapped transport hub continues to struggle financially

The prospect of Newquay Airport ever becoming financially self-sufficient without the backing of Cornish taxpayers remains a distant reality. That was the stark message delivered at Cornwall Council meetings this week.

Having agreed to prop up the airport’s operations to the tune of more than £5.8m over the coming year, Cornwall councillors have been exploring the possibility of reintroducing a passenger levy to boost income.

Newquay Airport previously operated a levy known as the Airport Development Fee (ADF), a £5 charge applied to departing passengers aged 16 and over. Cornwall Council officially axed the contentious charge a decade later in March 2016 in a bid to drive passenger growth and attract new airline routes.

Meetings of Cornwall Council’s corporate finance scrutiny committee and its Liberal Democrat/Independent cabinet heard this week that the airport – which has perpetually struggled to turn a profit – is facing mounting pressure following the collapse of Eastern Airways and the council’s decision to scrap the subsidised Public Service Obligation (PSO) route to London Gatwick earlier this year.

In response, Corserv – the council-owned company that operates the airport – is set to unveil a transformation plan later this year. Alongside the commercial development of the surrounding airport estate, this could involve introducing alternative revenue streams such as drone operations, defence contracts and an expanded offering at Spaceport Cornwall, which is situated at the airport.

Corserv chief executive Neil Edmond told the finance scrutiny committee this week the airport requires more than a million passengers a year to cover its operating costs – a figure that will realistically never be achieved given its geographical location.

The committee was informed that the airport will be unable to function without financial support for at least the next four to five years, although it was hoped this reliance on subsidy could be reduced over time.

Cllr Rowland O’Connor voiced concerns that every single day the airport remains operational it is heaping further financial pressure on other areas of the council. He also highlighted the suspension of capital maintenance at the airport, which has been deferred for a year.

“It is absolutely amazing that we are deferring routine maintenance. From an outsider in, I’d be asking what safety implications does that have,” he said.

As part of its recommendations to cabinet, the committee called on the administration to “urgently reviews an airport passenger fee to maximise income”.

Council leader Cllr Leigh Frost confirmed it was something his cabinet would “absolutely look at”.

Cllr Martyn Alvey urged restraint, noting that the previous Conservative administration – of which he was a member – had considered reintroducing a passenger levy but “kicked it into touch” after concluding it was not a viable option.