The fight over the Crystal Bar vape brand has generated more litigation than most trademark disputes produce in a decade. A Court of Appeal judgment handed down last week cuts through the detail to deliver a clear message: enforcement letters are a legitimate tool, but they carry real legal risk if the trademark behind them isn’t solid.

What Was the Dispute About?

Bargain Busting Ltd (BBL) and Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd (SKE) are rival UK vaping suppliers. SKE manufactures the Crystal Bar, one of the country’s best-selling disposable vapes. BBL holds several registered UK trademarks including registration 3786148, the words CRYSTAL BAR in class 34, covering electronic cigarettes.

In December 2024, BBL’s solicitors wrote to eleven of SKE’s distributors, wholesalers, and retailers, asserting infringement of BBL’s marks and warning of proceedings. SKE applied to the High Court for an interim injunction to stop further letters being sent to its customers.

The High Court granted that injunction in May 2025. BBL appealed.

Who Is This Relevant To?

• Brand owners considering enforcement action, especially anyone planning to write to a competitor’s supply chain
• Businesses that have received threatening letters about alleged trademark infringement
• Distributors and retailers caught in the middle of a dispute between brand owners
• Any business in a competitive sector where product names are actively contested

What Was the Outcome?

Lord Justice Arnold, Lady Justice Laing, and Lord Justice Warby sat together in the Court of Appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the injunction. BBL’s right to send threat letters to SKE’s customers was restored pending the full trial, listed for March 2027.

Why Was That the Outcome?

Section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 applies whenever a court is asked to restrict someone’s ability to communicate before trial, including letters asserting trademark rights. It sets a clear condition: the court cannot grant that relief unless the applicant is likely to succeed at trial. “Likely” means more likely than not, a standard the House of Lords established in Cream Holdings Ltd v Bannerjee [2004].

The trial judge had found only that SKE’s prospects were “sufficiently favourable”, a lower bar that the Court of Appeal found was the wrong test. Since the judge had never actually concluded SKE was more likely than not to succeed, the injunction could not stand.

The broader context matters. The unjustified threats regime (Trademarks Act 1994, sections 21 to 21F) exists to stop brand owners using aggressive letter campaigns to clear a competitor’s supply chain without ever proving their case in court. SKE argued BBL’s marks were invalid and the infringement case was weak. That argument may yet succeed at trial, but at the interim stage a possible win is not enough.
The law required SKE to show a probable win, and it had not.

How Could This Information Help You?

If you are considering sending threat letters as a brand owner:

Sending letters to a competitor’s customers is a legitimate tactic, but only when your trademark position can hold up under scrutiny. If the marks you’re relying on are vulnerable to a validity challenge, those letters can expose you to a counterclaim for the commercial damage they caused. Before any enforcement campaign, get your registrations properly assessed: which marks, which classes, what are the potential weaknesses.

If you have received a threat letter:

You do not have to simply comply. The unjustified threats provisions exist to protect businesses whose trading relationships are being targeted by letters that go beyond what a legitimate trademark claim can support. If the mark is of questionable validity, or the claim is being used to disrupt your supply chain rather than address genuine infringement, that is challengeable. This case shows the law takes it seriously. Get specialist advice before you respond.

Summary

The Court of Appeal set aside an interim injunction that had prevented BBL from sending trademark threat letters to SKE’s distributors. The wrong legal threshold had been applied at first instance. Under section 12(3) HRA, the bar is ‘more likely than not to succeed at trial’ and it was not met. For brand owners and the businesses they pursue, the message is consistent: enforcement letters need to be backed by a sound trademark position, and the law is designed to ensure they are.

Have a trademark question? Start with a free search or book a 15-minute call.

Free Trademark Search | Book a free 15-minute call | 0161 833 5400