Cease and Desist Letters UK: Law, Risks and Unjustified Threats

At a glance

• Legal force: a cease and desist letter has no binding legal effect by itself — it is a warning, not a court order. Its weight comes from the implied threat of further action.
• The single biggest risk: for patents, registered trade marks, registered designs and UK unregistered design right, an unjustified threat of infringement proceedings can itself be actionable against the sender under the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017.
• Copyright is different: copyright, along with passing off, breach of confidence and defamation, has no statutory threats regime. The 2017 Act does not apply to a copyright-only letter.
• Who you target matters: threats against the primary infringer (the manufacturer, importer, or the person applying the mark to goods) are generally outside the threats regime; threats against secondary parties such as retailers or customers carry more risk unless a specific exception applies.
• Professional adviser safe harbour: a regulated solicitor, trade mark attorney or patent attorney acting on client instructions and identifying that client is generally protected from a threats claim, even where the underlying threat later proves unjustified.
• If it escalates: a dispute likely to reach court should generally follow the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols. Many cease and desist letters are drafted to double as a compliant letter before claim.
• Lower-value disputes: straightforward copyright, trade mark, design and passing-off claims worth less than £10,000 can go to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court small claims track, a cheaper and more informal route than the main court.

What is a cease and desist letter?

A cease and desist letter is a formal written notice telling someone that their conduct is, in your view, unlawful, and asking them to stop. Despite the American-sounding name, these letters are used routinely in England and Wales. They are not court documents and have no statutory form of their own — their weight comes entirely from the credible threat of further legal action if the recipient ignores them.

In the UK, they most commonly appear in intellectual property disputes — copyright infringement, trade mark misuse, passing off, patent infringement, and design right infringement — but the same tool is used for harassment, defamation, breach of contract, breach of confidence, and misuse of private information. The letter typically identifies who you are, what right you hold, what the recipient has done, what you want them to do, and by when. Many also ask for a written undertaking not to repeat the conduct.

A well-judged letter can resolve a dispute at a fraction of the cost of litigation. A poorly judged one can backfire — and in the intellectual property context specifically, it can trigger a claim against the sender for making unjustified threats.

This guide covers England and Wales. The unjustified threats provisions described below apply UK-wide (the underlying Acts extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland too), but court procedure, including the Pre-Action Protocols referenced below, is specific to England and Wales.

The legal basis matters before you draft anything

Before writing a word, be clear which right you're relying on. The right you hold determines the source of law, the remedies available, and — critically for cease and desist letters — whether the unjustified threats regime applies to what you're about to say.

| Right | Governing law | Unjustified threats regime applies? | |---|---|---| | Patents | Patents Act 1977, ss.70–70F | Yes | | Registered trade marks | Trade Marks Act 1994, ss.21–21F | Yes | | Registered designs | Registered Designs Act 1949, ss.26–26F | Yes | | UK unregistered design right | Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss.253–253E | Yes | | Copyright | Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 | No — copyright has no statutory threats provision | | Passing off | Common law (no governing statute) | No — outside the statutory threats regime |

Passing off protects goodwill and reputation in a brand or get-up rather than a registered right, and sits outside the statutory scheme entirely — it's a common law action, not a creature of statute, so there's no equivalent "threats" provision to worry about.

The law on unjustified threats: the single biggest risk in IP cease and desist letters

This is the part of UK cease and desist practice that most self-drafted letters, and a fair number of professionally drafted ones, get wrong. The Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 rewrote the threats provisions in the Patents Act 1977, the Trade Marks Act 1994, the Registered Designs Act 1949, and the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (for UK unregistered design right), replacing the previous single sections in each Act with a structured set of provisions that all follow broadly the same pattern.

What counts as a "threat of infringement proceedings"

Under each Act, a communication contains a threat of infringement proceedings if a reasonable person in the recipient's position would understand from it that someone intends to bring infringement proceedings — whether in a UK court or elsewhere — over the right in question. This is judged objectively, from the recipient's likely understanding of the letter, not from what the sender privately intended.

Which rights are covered — and the copyright exclusion

The threats regime applies to patents, registered trade marks, registered designs, and UK unregistered design right. It does not apply to copyright, passing off, breach of confidence, or defamation — there is no equivalent statutory threats provision for any of these, and the 2017 Act deliberately left them out. If your only complaint is copyright infringement, the specific risk described in this section doesn't arise, though careless or intimidating correspondence can still create other problems (see "Common mistakes" below).

Who you threaten matters: primary infringers vs secondary parties

Each Act carves out an important exception: a threat is not actionable if it's made against someone who has done, or intends to do, a "primary" infringing act — broadly, manufacturing or importing the infringing product, or (for trade marks) applying the mark to goods or their packaging. Threats against the primary infringer are generally safe.

The exception does not extend to secondary parties — a retailer stocking the product, or a customer using it, rather than making or importing it. Historically, some rights holders threatened a competitor's retailers or customers directly, rather than the competitor itself, hoping to scare off trade without ever having to prove their case. The 2017 Act was specifically aimed at that practice: a threat made to a secondary party, where the alleged infringement doesn't consist of a primary act, is more likely to be actionable unless it falls within the "permitted communications" exception below.

Permitted communications and the professional adviser safe harbour

Two further protections matter in practice:

• Permitted communications. A communication that contains a threat is not actionable if it is made for a "permitted purpose" — broadly, to find out whether, or by whom, a right has been infringed, or to give notice that a right exists — and it contains only the information reasonably necessary for that purpose, reasonably believed to be true. This lets a rights holder write to a retailer purely to ask who supplied the goods, without that enquiry itself becoming an actionable threat.
• Professional advisers. A regulated solicitor, trade mark attorney or patent attorney is generally protected from a threats claim over a letter they send, provided they were acting on a client's instructions and identified that client in the communication. The protection covers the adviser, not the client — the client who gave the instructions remains exposed if the threat turns out to be unjustified.

Worked example: two trade mark letters, two different outcomes

Meridian Outdoor Ltd, a fictional business, believes a rival's garden furniture infringes its registered trade mark. Rather than writing to the manufacturer, Meridian sends near-identical letters to five independent garden centres that stock the furniture, threatening each with infringement proceedings unless they stop selling immediately within 48 hours. One garden centre, aggrieved at the threat and the lost trade it causes while it investigates, brings a threats action under section 21A of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Because the garden centres are secondary parties, not the primary infringer, and the letters go well beyond what was necessary simply to identify the manufacturer, Meridian is exposed to a claim for a declaration, an injunction, and damages.

Contrast that with a second scenario: a firm of solicitors, instructed by a different design-right owner, writes to a single stockist. The letter identifies the solicitors' client by name, is confined to the facts reasonably necessary to explain the design right and ask who supplied the goods, and is sent by a regulated professional adviser. Even if it later turns out the underlying claim was weaker than the client believed, the solicitors are generally protected by the professional adviser exception — though the client who instructed them may not be.

What to include in a cease and desist letter

1. Work out what you're actually complaining about. Is this copyright infringement, trade mark misuse, passing off, patent infringement, design right infringement, defamation, harassment, or breach of a contract term? The right you're relying on determines the remedies available, the language to use, and — as above — whether the unjustified threats regime applies to what you're about to send.
2. Identify the right recipient. Wherever possible, address the primary infringer — the manufacturer, importer, or the person applying the mark or copying the work — rather than a retailer or customer. If you genuinely don't know who that is, a narrowly framed enquiry aimed at finding out (rather than a full threat) is safer.
3. Gather your evidence. Collect screenshots, dates, URLs, registration certificates, correspondence and sales figures. Keep originals and note when each piece was captured. If you hold a registered right, check your ownership record is current — an assignment that hasn't been recorded can complicate matters if the dispute is challenged.
4. Decide what outcome you actually want. Do you want the content taken down, the conduct to stop, an apology, damages, destruction of stock, or some combination? Being specific makes the letter far more effective than a vague demand to "stop infringing." Set a realistic deadline — commonly somewhere between seven and fourteen days depending on urgency.
5. Draft the letter carefully and proportionately. Identify the parties, state your right, describe the infringement factually, reference your evidence, set out your demands, and specify the deadline. Avoid exaggeration and avoid threatening action you have no intention of taking. In patent, trade mark, registered design and UK unregistered design right matters, keep the wording within what's reasonably necessary — the 2017 Act's permitted-communications test rewards restraint.
6. Send it properly and keep records. Use a method that gives proof of delivery — recorded post, email with a read receipt, or both — and keep copies of everything you send and receive.

If the deadline passes: escalation and the Pre-Action Protocol

If the recipient doesn't respond, or responds unsatisfactorily, you need to decide whether to escalate. Where the matter may end up in court, the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols sets out what the court expects the parties to have done first: exchanging enough information for each side to understand the other's position, considering whether the dispute can be resolved without proceedings, and considering a form of alternative dispute resolution such as mediation. The Practice Direction is explicit that it must not be used as a tactical device to gain an unfair advantage, and that only reasonable and proportionate steps are expected.

For lower-value disputes, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) small claims track is designed for straightforward copyright, trade mark, design and passing-off claims worth less than £10,000. It's a cheaper, more informal route than the main court, and — outside limited exceptions — the losing side doesn't usually have to pay the winner's costs, which changes the economics of pursuing a smaller dispute.

Don't bluff. A letter that threatens court action you have no intention of taking undermines your credibility next time, and in patent, trade mark and design cases, an empty or overreaching threat is exactly what exposes you to a claim under the 2017 Act.

If you've received a cease and desist letter

Don't panic and don't ignore it. Read it carefully, note the deadline, and preserve — rather than delete — any material the letter is complaining about. Consider whether the allegations have merit; sometimes they do, sometimes they're overstated or wrong. Check who the letter is from and on what legal basis: if it concerns a patent, trade mark or design and you are a secondary party (for example, you stock or use something someone else made), the sender's own position may be more exposed than yours. Take advice before responding if the letter threatens court proceedings or the position is genuinely unclear. A measured, timely reply — even a short one asking for more information or more time — is almost always better than silence.

Worked example: an unclear copyright claim

Priya, a fictional small trader, receives a cease and desist letter claiming that product photographs on her online shop infringe someone else's copyright. She didn't take the photographs herself — she sourced them, along with a licence, from a supplier. She checks the letter's deadline, preserves the photographs and her licence paperwork, and contacts her supplier to confirm the scope of the licence she was given, since whether her use is infringing depends on whether the supplier actually had the right to pass on those images. Because copyright carries no unjustified-threats protection for the recipient, the sender isn't personally exposed simply because the underlying claim later turns out to be wrong — which is exactly why engaging promptly and checking the facts matters more here than assuming, as Priya might if this were a trade mark or patent letter, that an overreaching sender is taking a risk of their own.

Common mistakes that create risk

• Threatening secondary parties instead of the primary infringer in patent, trade mark or design cases — this is the single most common way senders end up on the wrong end of an unjustified threats claim.
• Exaggerating the claim or the consequences — describing conduct as more serious, or your rights as broader, than they actually are.
• Sending repeated, escalating threats without ever following through — this weakens your credibility and, if excessive, can shade into harassment.
• Skipping the ownership check — sending a letter based on a right that has been assigned, expired, or was never properly registered in your name.
• Treating copyright and registered rights the same way — assuming the unjustified threats risk applies (or doesn't apply) uniformly across all IP types, when the legal position genuinely differs by right.
• Not keeping evidence of delivery — if the dispute escalates, you may need to prove the letter was sent and when.

What to do next

1. Confirm which right you're relying on and check the table above for whether the unjustified threats regime applies to it.
2. If a registered right is involved, identify the primary infringer where possible, and keep any communication to secondary parties narrowly framed.
3. Gather your evidence and decide the specific outcome you want before drafting anything.
4. Draft proportionately, set a realistic deadline, and send by a method that proves delivery.
5. If the deadline passes, decide between a formal letter before claim under the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, alternative dispute resolution, the IPEC small claims track for lower-value disputes, or letting the matter drop.
6. If you've received a letter, preserve the material in question, check the legal basis and the sender's identity, and consider taking advice before you reply — particularly where court action is threatened or the position is unclear.

This guide provides general information about cease and desist letters and the UK law on unjustified threats in England and Wales. It is not legal advice and is not a substitute for advice tailored to your specific circumstances. The law described was accurate as at August 2026 and is subject to change — always check GOV.UK and legislation.gov.uk for the most current position.

Last reviewed: August 2026 by a non-practising solicitor · Next review due: August 2027 or on legislative change.