England and Wales Case Law

Wang Zeng International Limited v Bing Bing Foods Limited & Ors

The claimant’s trade marks were not generic or descriptive at the relevant dates, were distinctive, and not registered in bad faith. The defendants’ use of identical signs for identical goods without consent constituted infringement under s.10(1) TMA. The defendants’ counterclaim for invalidity, revocation, and bad faith failed for lack of evidence. Mr Bingtao Wang, as sole director and controlling mind of BBF, had requisite knowledge and is jointly and severally liable; Mr Sohi’s role was purely administrative and he is not liable.

Source excerpt

• Trade mark infringement
• Trade mark validity
• Distinctiveness
• Descriptiveness
• Genericism
• Bad faith

Read case analysis

Wang Zeng International Ltd v Bing Bing Foods Ltd & Ors

Wang Zeng International Ltd v Bing Bing Foods Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 360 (IPEC) (20 February 2026)

The court held that the claimant’s pear trade marks were valid and infringed. The defendants failed in their invalidity and revocation counterclaim, and one director was held jointly liable.

• Trade mark infringement
• Trade mark validity
• Distinctiveness
• Descriptiveness
• Genericism
• Acquired distinctiveness

Read case analysis

easyGroup Limited v Premier Inn Hotels Limited

The High Court dismissed easyGroup’s trade mark claims over Premier Inn’s “Rest Easy” branding, finding no confusion, no unfair advantage, and no invalidity.

• Trademark infringement
• Distinctiveness
• Reputation
• Likelihood of confusion
• Unfair advantage
• Detriment

Read case analysis

Natasha Courtney-Smith & Anor v The Nottinghill Shopping Bag Company & Ors

The court held the trade mark had expired and was not validly renewed, that NHBCL lacked standing, and that goodwill was not proved. Copyright subsisted, but no infringement was found.

• Trade mark expiry and renewal
• Passing off
• Copyright subsistence
• Beneficial ownership
• Bona vacantia
• Revocation for non-use

Read case analysis

Shorts International Limited v Google LLC

The High Court held that Google’s use of “Shorts” in YouTube Shorts did not infringe Shorts International’s marks or amount to passing off, while some marks were partly revoked or invalid.

• Trademark infringement
• Passing off
• Trademark validity
• Revocation for non-use
• Distinctive character
• Descriptiveness

Read case analysis

Shorts International Limited v Google LLC

SIL does not need to apply to amend its pleadings to narrow the specifications of goods and services in response to invalidity and non-use attacks; the court can determine the appropriate specification based on evidence and submissions. However, Google is permitted to amend its pleadings at this late stage to introduce deceptiveness as a ground of invalidity and to expand its non-use claim, as the balance of prejudice and case management considerations favour allowing the amendments.

Source excerpt

• Trade marks
• Invalidity
• Revocation for non-use
• Pleading amendments
• Descriptiveness
• Distinctiveness

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

Shorts International Ltd v Google LLC

Shorts International Ltd v Google LLC [2024] EWHC 2565 (Ch) (08 October 2024)

The High Court held that Shorts International did not need to amend its pleadings to narrow trade mark specifications, and allowed Google to add late amendment points.

• Trade mark validity
• Descriptiveness
• Distinctiveness
• Revocation for non-use
• Pleading amendments
• Deceptiveness

Read case analysis

Athleta (ITM) Inc. v Sports Group Denmark A/S & Anor

Athleta (ITM) Inc. v Sports Group Denmark A/S & Anor [2024] EWHC 2449 (Ch) (30 September 2024)

High Court intellectual property trial on Athleta’s trade mark and passing off claims. The court found partial infringement, partial revocation for non-use, and no passing off.

• Trade mark infringement
• Passing off
• Trade mark validity
• Revocation for non-use
• Distinctiveness of trade marks
• Trade-mark-infringement

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