One of our clients has received another concerning trademark warning email. This time it came from an organisation calling itself St Nic’s Legal Services, using the domain stnicslegalservices.co.uk.

The email was headed “Legal Notice on Business Name and Domain Rights Conflict”.

It claimed that an unnamed party was preparing to file a UK trademark application for the recipient’s established business name. The recipient was then given just 72 hours to confirm whether they claimed any legal or commercial rights in that name.

If this sounds familiar, that is because it follows a pattern we are seeing repeatedly.

Another business is allegedly about to register your name

The email stated that St Nic’s Legal Services was conducting “pre-filing due diligence and verification procedures” for a proposed trademark application.

According to the sender:

• an unidentified client wanted to register the recipient’s business name;
• the application had not yet been filed with the UK Intellectual Property Office;
• the recipient might possess earlier rights in the name;
• the recipient had 72 hours to explain their position; and
• the proposed application might proceed if no response was received.

The email referred to sections 5, 5(4)(a) and 38 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, together with the Trade Marks Rules 2008.

This legal language makes the communication appear authoritative. However, quoting genuine legislation does not necessarily make the process being described genuine.

The email

We have removed the recipient’s name, business name and other identifying information. Otherwise the wording below is reproduced as received.

From: Claire Hyslop <claire@notice.stnicslegalservices.co.uk>
Date: 7 August 2026
Subject: Legal Notice on Business Name and Domain Rights Conflict

Hello [REDACTED],

This correspondence constitutes a formal verification notice issued by the Trademark Division of St Nic’s Legal Services in relation to a proposed trademark application for the mark “[BUSINESS NAME REDACTED]”, which is presently undergoing our pre-filing due diligence and verification procedures prior to any formal submission to the UK Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”).

The proposed application remains under internal review and has not yet been submitted to the UKIPO. In accordance with our pre-filing due diligence obligations, and having regard to the Trade Marks Act 1994, including, where relevant, Sections 5, 5(4)(a) and 38, together with the Trade Marks Rules 2008, we are required to make reasonable enquiries to determine whether any earlier rights or competing commercial interests exist which may be material before our verification process is concluded.

Our enquiries indicate that you may have used, or may presently be using, the name “[BUSINESS NAME REDACTED]” in the course of trade. We are therefore writing to provide you with an opportunity to clarify your position before the proposed application progresses further.

Our review specifically concerns:

• Potential prior use in the course of trade capable of giving rise to enforceable rights under Section 5(4)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994; and
• Any grounds which may be relevant under Section 5, including unregistered rights, trade names, goodwill, or other earlier interests.

Accordingly, we request that you confirm, within 72 hours of receipt of this notice, whether:

• You or your organisation have used, or are presently using, the name “[BUSINESS NAME REDACTED]” within the United Kingdom; and/or
• You assert any legal, commercial, equitable or other protectable interest in that name.

If you consider that the proposed application conflicts with any earlier rights held by you, we invite you to provide a written response together with any supporting evidence you wish us to take into account before our verification process is concluded.

Please note:

• This notice forms part of our pre-filing verification process and is intended to ensure that any apparent prior user has the opportunity to clarify their position before the proposed application progresses.
• In the absence of a response within the above timeframe, our verification process will be concluded on the basis of the information available to us at that time.
• If no competing rights are identified during that process, the proposed application may proceed in accordance with the instructions received.
• Once an application has been filed, any issues relating to earlier rights may need to be addressed through the procedures provided under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the applicable UKIPO process.

You may also wish to note that the UK trade mark system generally operates on a first-to-file basis, subject to any earlier rights recognised under the Trade Marks Act 1994. Accordingly, if you are actively trading under the name and wish to formalise or protect any rights you consider you have acquired through prior use, you should notify us within the above timeframe so that your position may be taken into account before our verification process is concluded.

For compliance, audit and evidential purposes, all communications relating to this matter should be made in writing.

This matter is presently under verification. We should therefore be grateful to receive your response within the stated timeframe to enable the verification process to be concluded before the proposed application progresses further.

Yours faithfully,

Claire Samantha Charlotte Hyslop
Registered IP Solicitor
342–344 Ringwood Road, Ferndown, BH22 9AT, England
SRA: 501579
Phone: +44 1202 080110
Website: stnicslegalservices.co.uk

 

Is this an official UKIPO notice?

No.

The email was not sent by the UK Intellectual Property Office. It describes a private “pre-filing verification process” supposedly being conducted by St Nic’s Legal Services. The email also confirms that the alleged trademark application had not been submitted to the UKIPO.

• there was no UKIPO application number;
• there was no official examination underway;
• there was no published application to oppose; and
• the 72-hour deadline was not imposed by the UKIPO.

Recipients should not mistake the email’s formal language for an official government or UKIPO notice.

Is there a required pre-filing verification process?

A trademark applicant may choose to conduct searches and investigate possible earlier rights before filing an application. In many cases that is sensible.

However, the normal UK trademark application process does not require an applicant or their representative to send a potential prior user a 72-hour “formal verification notice” before an application can be filed.

Once a trademark application has been submitted, the UKIPO examines it. If it is accepted, the application is published in the Trade Marks Journal. Third parties then normally have two months in which to oppose the application. That period can be extended to three months by filing a notice of threatened opposition.

That is the recognised UKIPO process. The sender may have created its own internal verification procedure, but recipients should not confuse that procedure with an official legal deadline or a statutory obligation to respond.

Why does the email refer to section 38?

The email refers to section 38 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 as part of its supposed pre-filing due diligence obligations. However, section 38 concerns opposition after a trademark application has been accepted and published. In this case, the sender expressly stated that the proposed application had not yet been filed.

Using section 38 in this context may make the communication appear more authoritative, but it does not turn a private 72-hour deadline into part of the official UKIPO procedure.

The email also refers to section 5 and section 5(4)(a). Those provisions can be relevant where a proposed trademark conflicts with earlier trademarks or other earlier rights, including rights arising through passing off. Again, the legislation itself is genuine. The question is whether the circumstances and supposed process described in the email are genuine.

Who is the alleged applicant?

The email did not identify:

• the person or business supposedly seeking the trademark;
• the goods or services the proposed application would cover;
• the trademark classes involved;
• the alleged applicant’s location;
• the nature of the competing business;
• an application number; or
• any instructions received from the supposed applicant.

This is important. Without that information, the recipient cannot properly assess whether there is a genuine commercial conflict. The recipient is simply expected to accept that an unidentified third party is preparing to register their established business name.

A genuine potential conflict can be serious, but it should be possible to obtain enough information to understand and independently verify the issue.

The 72-hour deadline

The short deadline is another significant warning sign. The email arrived unexpectedly and told the recipient to explain their rights within 72 hours. It suggested that the proposed application could otherwise proceed.

That creates urgency without providing the basic information required to make an informed decision. A worried business owner may believe that failing to reply within three days will cause them to lose their business name. That fear can encourage them to respond before checking:

• whether the firm exists;
• whether the sender is regulated;
• whether another applicant exists;
• whether an application has been prepared;
• whether there is a genuine conflict; or
• whether they are under any obligation to engage with the sender.

An internal deadline imposed by an unfamiliar sender is not automatically a legal deadline. Pressure is often the point: the less time recipients believe they have, the less likely they are to investigate before responding.

The claimed solicitor and SRA number

The email was signed in the name of Claire Samantha Charlotte Hyslop. The footer described the person as a “Registered IP Solicitor” and displayed the SRA number 501579. It also gave an address in Ferndown and a telephone number beginning with 01202.

At the time of writing, we have not been able to independently verify that St Nic’s Legal Services is an SRA-regulated law firm, or that the named person is genuinely connected to the website and email address used. That does not, by itself, establish who sent the email.

Names, addresses and regulatory numbers can be copied or misused. Even if a real solicitor with the same or a similar name exists, that would not prove that the genuine person created the website or authorised this communication.

The correct approach is to check both the individual and the organisation through the official Solicitors Regulation Authority register. Any contact should be made using independently sourced details. Do not rely on a website, email address or telephone number contained in the communication being investigated.

The email subdomain

The message was sent from claire@notice.stnicslegalservices.co.uk.

The use of a notice subdomain may help make the communication look as though it comes from a dedicated legal notification system. However, a professional-looking email address does not verify the identity or regulatory status of the sender. Anyone can register a domain and create authoritative-sounding subdomains or email addresses. The underlying organisation, person and regulatory details must still be checked independently.

Does registering a company name protect it?

The recipient understandably believed that registering the business name with Companies House allowed them to use it without registering a trademark.

Company names and trademarks are separate. Registering a company at Companies House does not automatically give the company registered trademark rights. Similarly, owning the corresponding domain name does not create registered trademark protection. We have set out in more detail what protection a name on Companies House provides.

A business may also be required to change its company or trading name if it conflicts with someone else’s earlier rights. However, that does not mean a business without a registered trademark has no rights at all.

A business that has genuinely traded under a name may have developed goodwill and reputation. Depending on the facts, those unregistered rights may support a passing-off claim against someone whose use of a similar name misrepresents a connection and causes, or is likely to cause, damage.

Evidence of those rights might include:

• the date trading began;
• invoices and accounts;
• sales under the name;
• advertising and marketing;
• website and domain records;
• customer reviews;
• social media activity;
• photographs of signage, vehicles or premises;
• geographic trading areas; and
• evidence that customers associate the name with the business.

The existence and strength of unregistered rights depend on the evidence. They should be assessed properly, without being rushed by an unexplained 72-hour deadline.

The warning signs

This email contains several features that should cause a recipient to stop and verify everything independently:

• an unnamed third party allegedly wants to register the recipient’s business name;
• no trademark application has been filed;
• there is no UKIPO application number;
• no trademark classes are identified;
• no goods or services are specified;
• the supposed applicant is not named;
• the alleged commercial conflict is not explained;
• the recipient is given only 72 hours to respond;
• genuine legislation is used to make a private process sound official;
• the recipient is invited to disclose evidence about their business and legal rights;
• the claimed firm and solicitor require independent verification; and
• the approach closely resembles other “business name and domain rights conflict” emails reported to us.

The pattern we are seeing

This is not the first email we have seen claiming that an unidentified third party is about to register someone else’s business name. Others are listed in our trademark scam directory. The wording changes, but the structure is often similar:

1. The sender identifies a business that does not appear to have registered its trading name as a trademark.
2. The sender claims to be acting for another party interested in the name.
3. The supposed applicant is not identified.
4. The recipient is told that action is imminent.
5. A short deadline creates fear and urgency.
6. The recipient is invited to reply and explain or protect their position.
7. The sender is then in a position to offer trademark registration or related legal services.

A genuine trademark conflict is possible in any particular case. That is why each communication must be investigated on its own evidence. But businesses should be extremely cautious when an unfamiliar organisation approaches them using this pattern.

What should you do if you receive this email?

If you receive an email from St Nic’s Legal Services, or any similar organisation claiming that another party is preparing to register your business name, do not panic.

Before replying, calling, providing documents or making any payment, check:

• Has a UK trademark application actually been filed?
• Is there a searchable UKIPO application number?
• Who is the alleged applicant?
• What goods and services are involved?
• Which trademark classes would the application cover?
• Is the sender an SRA-regulated firm?
• Is the named individual a regulated solicitor?
• Does the person’s official SRA record connect them to the firm?
• Do independently sourced contact details match the email?
• Does the business exist at the stated address?
• How long have you traded under the name?
• Do you possess registered or unregistered rights?
• Is the stated deadline imposed by the UKIPO, a court or another official body?
• Has the sender explained why the supposed applicant cannot be identified?

Do not conduct these checks using only the links and contact details in the email. Search the official UKIPO, Companies House and SRA records independently. If you already have a trademark representative, send the original email to them for review.

You should also preserve:

• the original email;
• its complete headers;
• any attachments;
• the sender’s email address;
• the date and time received;
• screenshots of the website; and
• records of any later messages or calls.

Do not edit or delete the original communication, as its technical information may assist with an investigation.

Have you received an email from St Nic’s Legal Services?

If you have received a “Legal Notice on Business Name and Domain Rights Conflict” email from St Nic’s Legal Services, we would be interested in seeing it. Additional examples may help establish whether the names, domains, wording, deadlines and supposed applicants change between recipients.

The honest position is that we cannot yet confirm who is behind this approach. What we can say is that the email contains several significant warning signs and describes a 72-hour pre-filing process that should not be confused with an official UKIPO procedure.

As always, do not pay, provide instructions or disclose sensitive business information until the sender and the alleged trademark issue have been independently verified.

If you are not sure whether your business name is registered, a free trademark search will tell you what is actually on the register.

If in doubt, call The Trademark Helpline on 0161 833 5400 or send us the email for a second opinion.