Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anor v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Limited & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1839 (Ch)
Lifestyle Equities CV & Ors v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Limited & Ors
22 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 814
Court of Appeal
Three companies sued a polo club for using a similar logo. A judge said there wasn't enough confusion because many similar polo logos already exist, and agreements between some companies showed they didn't see it as a problem. An appeals court agreed, saying the judge made the right decision.
Key Facts
- •Lifestyle Equities CV, Lifestyle Licensing BV, and BHPC USA LLC (Claimants/Appellants) appealed against the dismissal of their trade mark infringement and passing off claim against Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Limited and others (Defendants/Respondents).
- •The Claimants owned/licensed trade marks featuring a horse-and-rider logo and "BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB."
- •The Defendants used similar signs, particularly "Sign 3", on clothing and other goods.
- •The case involved UK and EU trade mark law, with agreements simplifying the resolution of issues regarding multiple territories.
- •The judge found no likelihood of confusion, considering the crowded market of polo-themed brands, coexistence agreements, and lack of evidence of actual confusion.
- •The appeal focused on the judge's consideration of the "crowded market" and coexistence agreements.
Legal Principles
Likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, considering all relevant factors, from the perspective of the average consumer.
CJEU case law and standard summary in paragraph 11
A trade mark's distinctiveness is intimately tied to the scope of its protection; less distinctive marks enjoy narrower protection.
Case law including SABEL, Canon, and Comic Enterprises
The context of use of an allegedly infringing sign is relevant in assessing likelihood of confusion.
O2 Holdings v Hutchison 3G UK Ltd and Specsavers
Coexistence agreements are generally irrelevant to the assessment of likelihood of confusion, but their market effects may be relevant.
Omega SA v Office for Harmonisation, and the judge's interpretation
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found no error of law or principle in the judge's assessment. The judge correctly considered the crowded market's impact on the trade mark's distinctiveness and the relevance (though not determinative weight) of coexistence agreements. The lack of significant evidence of actual confusion further supported the judge's conclusion.