Reed Executive v Reed Business Information: most ‘Reed’ website uses did not infringe
Reed ExecutivevReed Business Information
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Judgment
- 3 March 2004
- Citation
- [2004] EWCA Civ 159
Using your own company name online isn't automatically trademark infringement, context matters.
Reed Employment claimed RBI's totaljobs.com website infringed its REED trademark and amounted to passing off. The Court of Appeal mostly sided with RBI, leaving only an early, abandoned version of the site as an infringement.
What happened
Reed Employment had used the REED trademark for employment agency services for many years. Reed Business Information (RBI), part of the Reed Elsevier group, ran the totaljobs.com recruitment website. An early version of the site and its logos used "Reed" prominently, and RBI accepted this infringed. Later versions carried a copyright notice naming "Reed Business Information", triggered a Yahoo banner advert, and used "Reed" in metatags, invoices and press releases. The trial judge found infringement and passing off across most versions. RBI appealed everything except the admitted Version 1 infringement.
What did the court decide in Reed Executive v Reed Business Information?
The Court of Appeal held "Reed Business Information" was not identical to the registered mark "REED", and that an internet recruitment advertising service was not identical to "employment agency services". That meant the case had to be judged under the likelihood-of-confusion test, not the stricter identical mark test. Applying that test, the court found no likelihood of confusion from the copyright notice, the Yahoo banner advert, metatag use, invoices or press releases. It also held RBI could in any event rely on the statutory defence allowing a company to use its own name. Only the admitted Version 1 infringement and the two logos stood, with damages and costs sent back to the trial judge on that narrower basis.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that sharing a surname or part of a name with another business doesn't mean every use of your own company name is trademark infringement, context and likely confusion matter more than the words alone.
- A company can often rely on the 'own name' defence when using its genuine corporate name, even where that name overlaps with someone else's trademark.
- Low-level or background confusion between two businesses isn't enough on its own to win an infringement or passing off claim, there needs to be a real likelihood of confusion.
- Website wording that changes over time can lead to different legal outcomes for different versions of the same site.
Things to be aware of
- This decision depends heavily on its own facts: a common surname, services the court saw as dissimilar, and declining use of 'Reed' across later website versions.
- The own-name defence the court relied on for companies has since been narrowed by later law changes to apply only to natural persons, so this reasoning may not transfer directly to current disputes.
- The case shows outcomes can differ sharply between an early version of a website and later, amended versions, so a single snapshot of a site doesn't tell the whole story.
The businesses involved
Reed Executive Plc
Registered in England in 1986 as Reed Executive Limited, still active and classified under business support activities. Long-standing owner of the REED trademark for employment agency services, holding trademarks on the UK trademark register.
- Companies House
- 02061422 Active
- Incorporated
- October 1986
- Registered office
- London
- Business activity
- Other professional, scientific and technical activities n.e.c.
- UK trademarks
- 2
Reed Business Information Ltd
Part of the Reed Elsevier group, publishes business and trade information and operated the totaljobs.com recruitment website at the centre of this dispute.
What happened next
- Costs reporting on the case recorded the full set of parties as Reed Executive plc and Reed Solutions plc against Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (UK) Ltd and Totaljobs.com Ltd.Source: Costslawreports
What others said about it
- 8 New Square's summary frames the case as a key authority on trademarks and the internet, covering metatags and the own-name defence together.Source: 8Newsquare
- Pinsent Masons point out that a specific wording change on the website, a notice dated 1999, could itself affect whether infringement was found.Source: Pinsentmasons
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2004] EWCA Civ 159 on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 27 October 2026. Report an error.
