England and Wales Case Law

Dryrobe Limited v Caesr Group Limited

The Marks, although descriptive for certain goods, have acquired medium to high distinctiveness through extensive use, marketing, and media coverage. Defendant's D-ROBE Sign and Shield Sign are sufficiently similar to the Marks and used on identical goods, causing a likelihood of confusion among a significant proportion of the public, including direct, indirect, and post-sale confusion. Evidence of actual confusion confirms this risk. Defendant's use also causes detriment and takes unfair advantage of the Marks' reputation. The Marks are not generic as of the relevant dates and have not lost…

Source excerpt

• Trademark infringement
• Trademark validity
• Genericism
• Acquired distinctiveness
• Revocation
• Section 10(2) tma

Read case analysis

WISE Payments Ltd v With Wise Ltd & Ors

WISE Payments Ltd v With Wise Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1722 (IPEC) (11 July 2025)

Trade mark and passing off dispute over WISE: the court held the claimant’s Class 9 specifications were partly invalid for bad faith, but rejected infringement.

• Trade mark infringement
• Bad faith registration
• Specification amendment
• Passing off
• Likelihood of confusion
• Trade mark reputation

Read case analysis

Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Limited

Stability AI is liable for trade mark infringement under sections 10(1) and 10(2) TMA in respect of iStock watermarks generated by v1.x models (accessed via DreamStudio and/or Developer Platform) and Getty Images watermarks generated by v2.x models, as the synthetic watermarks constitute use of a sign in the course of trade, in relation to identical or similar goods/services, and cause a likelihood of confusion. However, there is no infringement under section 10(1) for Getty Images watermarks, nor under section 10(3) for any mark, due to lack of evidence of detriment or unfair advantage. No p…

Source excerpt

• Ai and copyright
• Secondary infringement
• Trade mark infringement
• Passing off
• Exclusive licensing
• Database rights

Read case analysis

Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Craig Steven Wright

Dr Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, is not the author of the Bitcoin White Paper, is not the creator of the Bitcoin system, and is not the author of the initial versions of the Bitcoin software. The evidence that Dr Wright forged documents on a grand scale to support his claim is overwhelming. None of the documents relied on by Dr Wright as precursor work or drafts is authentic; most are deliberate forgeries. Dr Wright lied extensively to the court. COPA is entitled to declaratory relief. The court's findings are based on the totality of the evidence, including expert analysis, contemporaneous…

Source excerpt

• Declaratory relief
• Forgery
• Burden of proof
• Expert evidence
• Blockchain technology
• Cryptocurrency

Read case analysis

Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd

The court found that the claimants' claims for copyright and database right infringement, trade mark infringement, and passing off raise triable issues and have a real prospect of success. There are factual disputes and evidential gaps that require investigation at trial, particularly regarding whether acts of development and training occurred in the UK and the involvement of UK-based personnel and resources. The meaning of 'article' for secondary infringement is a novel legal issue unsuitable for summary determination. The claimants are permitted to amend their pleadings to add the image-to-…

Source excerpt

• Summary judgment
• Strike out
• Amendment of pleadings
• Ai and copyright
• Database right infringement
• Secondary infringement

Read case analysis

Thatchers Cider Company Limited v Aldi Stores Limited

The overall appearance of the Aldi Product (the Sign) is only similar to the Thatchers Trade Mark to a low degree. The dominant branding elements are dissimilar, and the similarities relate to descriptive or common decorative features. There is no likelihood of confusion for the average consumer, no unfair advantage or detriment to the Trade Mark’s reputation or distinctiveness, and no actionable misrepresentation. Accordingly, there is no infringement under section 10(2)(b) or 10(3) TMA, and no passing off.

Source excerpt

• Trade mark infringement
• Section 10(2)(b) trade marks act 1994
• Section 10(3) trade marks act 1994
• Passing off
• Likelihood of confusion
• Reputation

Read case analysis

EasyGroup Limited v Easyfundraising Limited & Ors

The court rejected EasyGroup’s infringement and passing off claims over easyfundraising, finding no confusion or unfair advantage, and revoked some marks for non-use.

• Trade mark infringement
• Revocation for non-use
• Likelihood of confusion
• Reputation and link under s.10(3)
• Passing off
• Accessory liability

Read case analysis

Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anor v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Limited & Ors

There is no likelihood of confusion between the claimants' and defendants' marks in any of the relevant territories, taking into account the crowded market for 'polo' brands, the distinctiveness of the marks as a whole, and the lack of substantive evidence of actual confusion. The claims for trade mark infringement, passing off, and conspiracy to injure by unlawful means all fail. Certain of the defendants' trade marks are revoked for non-use as admitted. Joint liability and other ancillary claims do not arise.

Source excerpt

• Likelihood of confusion
• Distinctiveness
• Co-existence agreements
• Joint and several liability
• Revocation for non-use
• Conspiracy to injure by unlawful means

Read case analysis

Lidl Great Britain Ltd & Anor v Tesco Stores Ltd & Anor

Lidl Great Britain Ltd & Anor v Tesco Stores Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 1517 (Ch) (21 June 2023)

The High Court refused damages in lieu of a final injunction for Tesco’s copyright infringement of Lidl’s logo, finding continued harm substantial and not adequately compensable.

• Final injunctions
• Damages in lieu of injunction
• User principle
• Proportionality of injunctive relief
• Assessment of damages
• Compliance period for injunctions

Read case analysis

Lidl Great Britain Ltd & Anor v Tesco Stores Ltd & Anor

Lidl Great Britain Ltd & Anor v Tesco Stores Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 873 (Ch) (19 April 2023)

The High Court held Tesco liable for trade mark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement over its Clubcard Prices branding, and dismissed Tesco’s counterclaims.

• Trade mark infringement
• Trade mark validity
• Bad faith registration
• Revocation for non-use
• Distinctive character
• Copyright infringement

Read case analysis