Lifestyle Equities CV & Ors v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 814 (22 July 2024)

Lifestyle Equities CV & Ors v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 814 (22 July 2024)

The appeal is dismissed because the judge correctly found, based on a global assessment of all relevant factors including the crowded market and coexistence agreements, that the claimant's trade marks lacked sufficient distinctiveness to give rise to a likelihood of confusion with the defendants' signs. No error of law or principle was made in the assessment, and there is no likelihood of confusion at the point of sale or post-sale.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 814
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Lifestyle Equities CV; Claimant/appellant: Lifestyle Licensing BV; Claimant/appellant: BHPC USA LLC; Defendant/respondent: Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Limited; Defendant/respondent: David Baxter Gentle; Defendant/respondent: James Tara Morrison; Defendant/respondent: The Partnership (Licensing) Limited; Defendant/respondent: Jonathan Eric Bower Townsend
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division), Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off, Likelihood of Confusion, Distinctive Character, Coexistence Agreements
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Trade Mark Infringement Passing Off Likelihood of Confusion Distinctive Character Coexistence Agreements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lifestyle Equities CV

Claimant/appellant

Lifestyle Licensing BV

Claimant/appellant

BHPC USA LLC

Claimant/appellant

Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Limited

Defendant/respondent

David Baxter Gentle

Defendant/respondent

James Tara Morrison

Defendant/respondent

The Partnership (Licensing) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Jonathan Eric Bower Townsend

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division), Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the existence of other polo-themed brands affects the distinctiveness of the claimant's trade marks and likelihood of confusion
  2. 2 Whether coexistence agreements are relevant to the assessment of likelihood of confusion
  3. 3 Whether there is a likelihood of confusion (direct or post-sale) between the claimant's trade marks and the defendants' signs

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the judge correctly found, based on a global assessment of all relevant factors including the crowded market and coexistence agreements, that the claimant's trade marks lacked sufficient distinctiveness to give rise to a likelihood of confusion with the defendants' signs. No error of law or principle was made in the assessment, and there is no likelihood of confusion at the point of sale or post-sale.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No finding of trade mark infringement or passing off
  • No injunction granted