Who are the real stewards of brand IP in the digital age? This question was posed to a packed audience of trademark attorneys and intellectual property lawyers at law firm HGF’s Brand & Design Conference 2026. DRD’s Claire Davidson and Sofiat Kolawole were invited to examine how brand protection functions today in a rapidly evolving digital environment, where new reputational risks emerge constantly and brands must juggle relevance with scrutiny.

This was a clear concern shared by many of the speakers, including Michael Edenborough KC, the intellectual property silk, as well as trade association representatives Alastair Gray of INTA Anticounterfeiting and Chloe Long of The Anti-Counterfeiting Group (ACG), alongside numerous brand representatives in attendance.

“Stewardship” emerged as a key theme of the day, raising the question of how the different functions supporting a brand can work together effectively in the interests of brand protection, from executives who set brand strategy, legal teams that safeguard brand rights, and PR and marketing teams that support relevance, customer awareness and salience.

What does brand protection look like in the digital age, where a creatively devised viral campaign can spark months of backlash, or pockets of discourse on social media channels about a brand’s socially conscious identity can snowball into a global media and political frenzy?

The DRD team flagged the following insights as most salient:

Relevance and visibility can come at a price

IP and trademark lawyers should consider how and why brands are showing up in digital spaces, so that, as professionals, they are better able to engage, advise and collaborate in brand protection.

Brands battle for relevance in an increasingly crowded digital space. According to the SAP Emarsys Global Consumer Products Engagement Report, 69% of consumer product marketers say it has become harder than ever meaningfully to engage customers. In this context, visibility itself is more frequently treated as a strategic objective, particularly as budgets decrease for traditional advertising and PR.

As a result, many brands are seeking visibility by pursuing virality as an objective itself, adopting an “ask for forgiveness, not permission” mindset for the “out there” bold approach before seeking legal input. Becoming a hot topic of conversation being preferable to not being “seen” at all. In the need for speed and impact, legal risks can emerge.

Two high street UK retailers were frequently cited during the conference. The Marks & Spencer and Aldi “caterpillar dispute” over ownership of the Colin/Cuthbert IP being played out in large part on social media and in newspapers, resulting in a standout brand moment for Aldi, who were able to capitalise on the public interest to create viral content and drive sales and brand visibility. While Aldi thrived in the court of public opinion, the legal outcome was a contrary tale: Aldi was forced to settle the case to M&S’s satisfaction, and the latter won the legal right to monetise Colin more than ever before, perhaps boosted by the public fascination with the copycat drama.

In this instance, the debate continues over whether the success of the viral brand moment outweighs the negative corporate impact. But brands beware: the fame of a cultural moment isn’t always as fun and light-hearted as tongue-in-cheek tweets about lawsuits and caterpillar memes gone viral.

A cutting-edge idea can become a risk to brand identity  

The cutting edge is where many brands wish to be, to demonstrate modernity and cultural relevance to audiences who may engage with dozens of different brands a day online. Several case studies examined by Claire and Sofiat showed the room that responding quickly to trends, borrowing cultural references or engaging with social and political discourse can move a campaign beyond a straightforward marketing tactic into unforeseen reputational exposure.

Examples discussed highlighted how brand visibility can quickly raise questions about whether the attention generated is worth the potential reputational cost. In such cases, brands may find themselves subject to sustained scrutiny and prolonged negative media coverage.

A campaign can be misinterpreted, leading to associations with harmful social values or societal insensitivity. In some cases, these controversies become politicised, with public figures and policymakers weighing in and shifting the focus from the brand to broader political or ideological debates. The resulting risks are significant, including reputational damage through association with controversial values, erosion of consumer trust, strained relationships with political stakeholders, and internal consequences such as employee disengagement or even activism. Once backlash takes hold, brands face a reactive and fragmented response environment, with narratives evolving faster than they can be effectively addressed.

Make brand protection a shared objective 

So how can a brand remain visible and relevant while keeping these risks in check?

The DRD team’s central thesis was that brand protection is a shared objective and responsibility, in which legal teams and PR and marketing teams are two of the most crucial stewards. They may all have different incentives to meet these goals, but protecting the brand is where all efforts coincide. A few key principles should be brought to brand ideation.

Firstly, effective brand stewardship must be grounded in anticipation rather than reaction.  Central to this approach is early risk analysis, enabling organisations to assess potential exposure and to prepare a rapid and proportionate response when issues arise.

To do this, legal teams should be involved from the very beginning of campaign development, because this early input can help to prevent global or cross-market issues and ensure alignment with the overall “corporate mood”, rather than intervening at the final stages with the much-dreaded; “legal says no!”

Moreover, early counsel from a specialist external communications firm is crucial for incorporating insight and expertise on reputation management, litigation risk and social media dynamics, as well as on the context and timing of campaigns, to make sure they are ready to operate in the real world. This objective third-party perspective can help translate big-picture strategic thinking from the boardroom into campaign execution, while undertaking risk assessments and scenario planning.

However, even for the best crisis professionals, the old adage of Robert Burns still rings true: “The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men gang aft agley”. Planning, preparation and foresight aren’t foolproof; one of the most profound challenges of the digital age is how quickly and intensely discourse can spiral. Having a team assembled and plans in place for if things don’t go to plan means brand and legal teams can approach a digital crisis with a more measured mindset and plan of action, with their external advisors already in place to mobilise for rapid response; relying not on hindsight, but on effectiveness.

From the “no-man” to the collaborator in creativity

As we look to the future of brand campaigns and activations in the digital age, the most effective ones will be defined by co-ownership and true collaboration. Strong stewardship relies on genuine partnerships between PR and marketing and legal teams from the earliest stages of development, supported by external advisors who can bring fresh perspective.

This level of preparedness does not seek to block or limit creativity; rather, to provide it the space it needs to explore how brand ethos and corporate priorities can coincide to engage the public in authentic, imaginative and innovative ways, while reaching that shared objective of keeping the brand protected.