Why spend money on IP?
The subject of the report is the influence of intellectual property rights (IPR) on the economic performance of companies in the EU.
The main findings of the study are: Companies that own IPR achieve on average 23.8% higher sales per employee compared to companies without IPR. After accounting for factors such as industry, company size and location, this advantage increases to 41%. Employees in companies with IPR receive on average 22% higher wages than their colleagues in companies without IPR. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) benefit particularly from IPR. Although only about 10% of EU SMEs own registered IPR, they report a 44% higher turnover per employee compared to SMEs without IPR. Companies that combine several types of IPR, such as trademarks and designs, see the highest increases in turnover per employee.
Consequently, there is a clear positive correlation between the ownership of IPR and the economic performance of companies in the EU. And a considerable potential for SMEs in particular to increase their competitiveness and profitability by acquiring and using IPR.The results underline the need to raise awareness of the benefits of IPR.
You might also be interested in this
The General Court also dismisses OpenAI’s action: No EU trademark protection for the word mark “OPENAI”—at least for now.
LG München I, judgment of 31.07.2026 – 42 O 763/25. In its second landmark judgment on the relationship between copyright and AI training, the Munich Regional Court (LG München I) has found the operator of the AI music generator Suno liable for infringement of copyright in six popular musical works. Notably, the 42nd Civil Chamber has, for the first time in a German judgment, applied the US fair use doctrine to AI training – and rejected it. We summarise the decision and set it in context.
In its judgment of 9 July 2026 (C-788/24), the ECJ followed the Opinion of Advocate General Rantos in the legal dispute concerning the online publication of “The Diary of Anne Frank”. At its core, the case centred on the question of whether geoblocking measures constitute effective technological protection measures against copyright infringements, even if they can be circumvented by VPN services. The Court has now answered this question with a clear ‘yes’.
The judgment ‘Obligation to Return VI’ (I ZR 123/25) of 3 June 2026 is – as the name suggests – the sixth judgment by the First Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on the so-called obligation to return applicable to hire cars. Following the pronouncement of the judgement, it was widely reported that the BGH had confirmed the continued validity of one of the most controversial provisions of passenger transport law. In the meantime, the dust has settled somewhat and it is becoming clear that this interpretation falls far short of the mark. Indeed, it follows from the grounds of the judgement that maintaining the obligation to return contravenes EU law if one takes its traditional objective and justification as a basis.
