YouTube Shorts triumph: the Court of Appeal confirms descriptive trade marks offer limited protection

Are commonly used, descriptive words such as “shorts” capable of being adequately protected from use by others? The Court of Appeal revisited this debate on 25 May 2026, handing down judgment in Shorts International Ltd v Google LLC [2026] EWCA Civ 668. The judgment offers important guidance for businesses looking to choose, use and enforce descriptive trade marks in evolving markets.

The dispute

Shorts International Ltd (“SIL”), a UK distributor of short films with a recognised ShortsTV channel, originally took legal action against Google in relation to YouTube Shorts, Google’s platform which offers short-form video content. SIL claimed that use of the word “shorts” amounted to infringement of SIL’s trade marks (including, amongst other things, the word ShortsTV and various stylistic Shorts logos) and passing off. The claim was dismissed by the High Court in 2024. SIL brought an appeal, which was again dismissed by the Court of Appeal in the present case.

Main takeaways

The Court of Appeal validated the High Court’s decision, confirming that Google’s use of “shorts” did not infringe SIL’s trade marks for the following reasons:

Lack of distinctive brand identity – the meaning of “shorts” has expanded to include ‘other short-form audiovisual content’, not just short films. This meant that SIL’s marks were no longer unique identifiers of source and could not therefore be considered sufficiently distinct.
No likelihood of confusion – consumers were not likely to face confusion between YouTube Shorts and SIL’s ShortsTV channel. Although there were high visual, aural and conceptual similarities between Google’s signs and SIL’s trade marks, these similarities were descriptive in nature instead of being indicative of origin.
No unfair advantage or detriment – the Court of Appeal noted that SIL’s marks were only known by a limited number of people in the UK, falling short of the reputational threshold required for a successful infringement claim. This also meant there was little goodwill for the purposes of passing off.
Partial invalidity – ShortsTV, SIL’s word mark, was noted as being partially invalid due to being a descriptive combination of two common terms that did not create any inventive significance. The Court of Appeal did not find that use of the mark resulted in acquired distinctiveness.

Effect of Shorts International in practice

This case emphasises that distinctiveness is crucial in order to retain and enforce registered trade marks. Businesses, especially those in the media and entertainment sectors, should note the following points:

Distinctiveness and reputation – descriptive product or brand names, such as “shorts” for short videos, are inherently weak as trade marks and, even if successfully registered, will be difficult to protect from being used by others. Much stronger protection is available for unique names, especially if they are used in good faith alongside effective marketing which avoids confusion; and
Risk and enforcement strategy – legal advice on the strength of registered trade marks should be sought ahead of making a claim against competitors, as re-branding, negotiation and alternative dispute resolution methods may be more time and cost effective than court proceedings. Claims that have not been carefully assessed ahead of time may even invite unwanted scrutiny towards the validity of your trade marks, as SIL discovered.

Navigating brand protection going forward

Shorts International serves as an important reminder of the limited protection afforded to descriptive trade marks, and businesses should be aware of the practical consequences associated with the upkeep of such marks.

Our intellectual property experts can advise you on the careful selection of your trade marks, management of your IP portfolio, assessment of risk factors, and implications of enforcement avenues – ensuring that your business is adequately protected.