17.10.2025

Is your IP safe? Eight real-life tips to avoid costly mistakes

Companies should make a point of reviewing their intellectual property rights on a regular basis. With a little effort today, it’s possible to avoid major and costly problems tomorrow.

Issues with IP rights often come to light in connection with business transactions – such as M&A deals or financing rounds – when lawyers conduct due diligence reviews. At that point, the milk is often already spilled. At worst, these issues can derail an acquisition or block financing.

Problems that emerge during DD are naturally hardest on company owners and management, but they can be frustrating for the lawyers conducting the review as well. After all, many of these issues are entirely preventable with proper handling from the start.

In this article, we will share eight practical tips to help your company take better care of its IP rights. They are based on issues we regularly encounter during DD reviews.

Could today be the day to make sure that a future transaction or financing round doesn’t fall through due to insufficiently managed IP rights?

1. Find out what IP rights your company has

To protect your company’s intangible assets, you first need to know what you actually own. Companies are generally well aware of their registered IP rights – after all, they have registration certificates and pay fees for them.

There are, however, two common problem areas. First, companies don’t always realise they have other intangible assets that could be registered but aren’t, leading to missing trademarks or unprotected inventions and designs. Second, companies often have an incomplete picture of their unregistered IP rights, i.e. copyrights, related rights and trade secrets. It’s difficult to protect something you don’t know you have.

2. Agree on the transfer of IP rights

Every time someone develops something for your company, make sure you have it in writing that the related IP rights transfer to the company. This applies to everyone – employees, owners and founders, managers and board members, consultants and freelancers, subcontractors and partners, as well as interns and students. Without a clear contract, the developer may retain the rights, which can make it difficult or impossible to commercialise what’s been created.

3. Don’t forget alteration and onward transfer rights

When agreeing on the transfer of IP rights to the company, it’s important to make sure that the transfer is sufficiently comprehensive in terms of time, geography and content. A small but crucial detail is that when transferring copyright, you must separately agree that the company as the transferee also has the right to alter the work and transfer the copyright to others. Without this express provision, the company isn’t permitted to do either.

4. Use open source wisely

If your company uses open source in its products, find out exactly what licensing terms apply to the components you’re using. Without clarifying the licence requirements upfront, you may inadvertently end up using so-called copyleft licences in your software products. In the worst case, careless use of copyleft licences can lead to an obligation to disclose the source code of the company’s proprietary products containing copyleft-licensed components to anyone who requests it.

5. Make sure compensation matters are in order

When agreeing on compensation for the transfer of IP rights, ensure the agreement is sufficiently comprehensive. It’s generally advisable to agree that the developer’s compensation includes payment for the IP rights transfer as well. Don’t forget about mandatory legal requirements, though. For example, the Act on the Right in Employee Inventions requires employers to pay reasonable compensation to employees – and in some cases, members of management – for their inventions, and this obligation cannot be waived by agreement.

6. Register your trademarks

Some people mistakenly believe that exclusive rights to a trademark can be obtained simply through establishing the trademark. However, this is only possible in Finland and requires substantial evidence, which is why, in practice, trademarks should always be registered. When registering trademarks, make sure to register all the trademarks your company uses and ensure that the registrations cover the relevant territories and categories of goods and services.

7. Protect your trade secrets

Make sure that your company has identified its trade secrets and established documented practices to protect them. It’s essential to protect trade secrets both contractually, for example through non-disclosure, employment and consultancy agreements, and operationally, through adequate data security, access control and other protective measures. Failing to properly identify or protect trade secrets can expose your company to disputes and, in the worst case, result in the complete loss of legal protection for some trade secrets.

8. Ask an expert when needed

The issues outlined above can seriously hinder your company’s operations or even bring them to a standstill. The simplest way to avoid problems is to review the necessary safeguards with an expert well in advance of any transaction, dispute or other important juncture in your company’s operations. Our goal is to have your company pass a potential DD review with flying colours.

Latest references

We successfully represented BMW in an exceptionally long dispute over whether the spare rims sold by the defendant and the hub caps included in them infringed BMW’s trademark and design rights. The Market Court found that the sign used by the defendant caused a likelihood of confusion with BMW’s trademarks. The defendant had used the sign on the hub caps and in the marketing of the hub caps and rims, leading the Market Court to find that the defendant had infringed BMW’s trademark rights. The defendant admitted to infringing BMW’s Community design but denied the related injunction claim. However, the Market Court found that there was no particular reason to refrain from issuing an injunction. The Market Court prohibited the defendant from continuing to infringe BMW’s trademarks and Community design and ordered the defendant to alter or destroy the products and marketing materials that infringed BMW’s rights. Furthermore, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay BMW EUR 70,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 80,000 in damages for the trademark infringements, as well as EUR 7,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 8,000 in damages for the design right infringement. The amounts can be considered exceptionally high in Finland. Additionally, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay a significant portion of BMW’s legal costs with interest on late payment. In its decision of 11 March 2025, the Supreme Court of Finland did not grant the defendant leave to appeal, and also decided that there was no need to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Thus, the Market Court’s judgements (MAO:494/18 and 517/2023) are final. In addition to the main dispute, BMW demanded in a separate proceeding that one of the defendant’s trademark registrations be revoked. A total of three separate legal proceedings were conducted in the Market Court regarding the revocation. The defendant’s trademark registration was ultimately revoked.
Case published 9.5.2025
We are advising DNA Plc in brand protection and intellectual property enforcement matters globally. Our intellectual property team manages DNA’s global trademark portfolio, including registration, prosecution, opposition and enforcement. We also advise DNA in questions concerning consumer and marketing law, unfair competition, social media, domain names and cybersquatting. DNA Plc is one of Finland’s leading telecommunication companies. DNA offers connections, services and devices for homes and workplaces, contributing to the digitalisation of society. The company has approximately 3.7 million subscriptions in its fixed and mobile communications networks. In 2024, DNA’s total revenue was EUR 1,100 million, and the company employs about 1,600 people around Finland. DNA is part of Telenor Group.
Case published 7.5.2025
We are acting as legal advisor to Piippo Plc in the sale of their bale netwrap and baler twine machines, related assets, and trademarks used in Piippo’s business to Portuguese Cotesi S.A. The sale of assets will be carried out in two phases and the final completion of the transaction is expected to occur during the first quarter of 2026. Piippo Oyj’s core business is baling nets and twine and it is one of the leading suppliers in the industry globally. The company’s global distribution network covers more than 40 countries. The company’s shares are listed on the First North Growth Market Finland operated by Nasdaq Helsinki Oy. Founded in 1967, Cotesi is one of the world’s leading producers of synthetic and natural twines, nets and ropes, with operations in Europe, North America and South America and its main production plant in Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.
Case published 17.4.2025
We successfully represented Onses Finland Oy before the Finnish Market Court in an exceptionally extensive dispute concerning alleged trademark infringement and unfair business practice. Our client, Onses Finland Oy, is a Finnish sports drink company and the owner of the sports drink brand ONSE. In the spring of 2023, the Polish beverage company OSHEE Polska Sp. z o.o. filed legal action against our client, alleging that the ONSE trademarks and product packaging infringed the OSHEE trademarks. The plaintiff’s secondary claims concerned alleged slavish imitation of the OSHEE sports drink packaging and exploitation of the reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff based its suit on registered trademarks as well as allegedly established and reputed figurative and three-dimensional trademarks. The Market Court rejected all of the plaintiff’s claims. The Market Court held that the marks invoked in the suit were neither established nor marks with a reputation in Finland. As regards the registered trademarks, the Market Court found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the OSHEE and ONSE trademarks. As to the secondary claims, the Market Court held that the sports drink packaging used by the plaintiff was a normal beverage bottle, the design of which was partly determined by functional factors. The Market Court also found that there were several blue sports drinks available on the market and that the plaintiff’s product was not the first blue sports drink on the market. The plaintiff failed to show that its product packaging was original or well-known to the average consumer at the time of the launch of our client’s ONSE sports drink product, and the Market Court thus rejected the claims on slavish imitation and exploitation of reputation. The Market Court ordered the plaintiff to pay all of our client’s legal costs with statutory interest.  In its decision of 28 March 2025, the Supreme Court of Finland did not grant OSHEE Polska leave to appeal. Thus, the Market Court’s judgment (MAO:280/2024) is final.
Case published 4.4.2025