Lifestyle Equities CV v. Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club

“In a crowded market, similar marks lose their distinctiveness – a shared theme alone cannot prove ownership.”

Short Description :

LECV, which owns trademark rights for BHPC and its polo player logo, filed infringement, passing-off, and unlawful means conspiracy claims against RCBPC for using a similar “polo player” logo and the term “Polo Club.” The dispute spanned multiple jurisdictions, including the UK, EU, Chile, Panama, Peru, Mexico, and the UAE.

Facts :

⦁ The claim focused on RCBPC’s use of a logo featuring a polo player on horseback, similar in concept to BHPC’s trademarked design.

⦁ LECV alleged confusion among consumers and argued that the use violated Sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the UK Trade Marks Act, alongside passing-off and conspiracy claims.

⦁ RCBPC and others countered by presenting market evidence showing that various “polo-themed” brands coexist, including Ralph Lauren Polo and US Polo Association, indicating a crowded marketplace.

Findings :

⦁ The High Court (Chancery Division, 2023) found no likelihood of consumer confusion or indirect infringement. The crowded nature of the market diluted the distinctive character of BHPC’s mark, reducing the risk of confusion.

⦁ Additionally, the court noted serious issues with Lifestyle Equities’ evidence—annotations in witness statements were misleadingly inserted, raising concerns of potential misrepresentation.

⦁ The Court of Appeal (2024) upheld the lower court’s decision, affirming that a crowded market context is relevant to assessing distinctiveness and infringement risk, and that coexistence agreements may inform consumer perception.

Judgment :

The High Court dismissed all claims—including trademark infringement, passing-off, and unlawful means conspiracy. The Court of Appeal affirmed this outcome, reinforcing the importance of market context and distinctiveness in assessing trademark claims.

Suggestion / Legal Implication :

⦁ Even a registered trademark may not be enforceable if the market is congested with similar imagery or themes—the distinctiveness of the mark is critical.

⦁ Courts can consider broader market evidence and even litigation conduct issues (e.g., misleading evidence) when evaluating the strength of claims.

⦁ This ruling underscore a shift toward realistic consumer perception: in crowded brand spaces, visual and thematic similarities alone may not lead to consumer confusion.