BMW v Premier Alloy Wheels: search order granted over counterfeit wheels and badges
Bayerische Motoren WerkevPremier Alloy Wheels (UK)
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 8 June 2018
- Citation
- [2018] EWHC 1713 (Ch)
Prior undertakings and knowledge of infringement can help a trademark owner secure urgent court orders later.
BMW accused Premier Alloy Wheels (UK) Ltd and others of selling counterfeit alloy wheels and badges dressed up as genuine BMW parts. BMW won the right to a search and seizure order against them.
What happened
BMW said the respondents, including a director who had already given undertakings after being caught selling counterfeit goods once before, were importing counterfeit alloy wheels that copied BMW's registered designs. They were also allegedly selling counterfeit badges carrying BMW's trademarks and fitting those badges to the wheels so they looked genuine. BMW's evidence included undercover test purchases, a Border Force seizure of counterfeit badges, and photographs of what was described as a badging station at the respondents' premises, apparently used to attach the fake badges to the wheels before sale.
What did the court decide in Bayerische Motoren Werke v Premier Alloy Wheels (UK)?
The court found BMW had a strong prima facie case, meaning a case that looks well founded on the evidence presented, that the respondents were infringing BMW's trademarks and registered designs and passing off their goods as genuine BMW products. The court was satisfied the stringent conditions for granting a search order were met. BMW had taken a long time to bring the application and the court criticised that delay, but it did not stop the order being made. The court reasoned that without the order, evidence of the scale of the counterfeiting and the identity of the suppliers behind it would likely be destroyed, and substandard counterfeit wheels posed a risk to public safety.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that when a business has already given undertakings to stop selling fakes and then carries on anyway, that history can work strongly against them if the trademark owner later needs an urgent court order. Keeping evidence of repeat infringement, including past undertakings and any seizures by Border Force, can matter a great deal if things escalate. Delay in applying for a search order will usually be criticised by the court, but it won't necessarily stop the order being granted if the ongoing harm is serious enough.
Things to be aware of
- This was an interim search and seizure order, not a final ruling on whether infringement had actually taken place.
- The court criticised BMW for taking a long time to apply for this order, even though that delay didn't ultimately block the relief.
The businesses involved
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG
Car manufacturer, based outside the UK, and owner of the BMW trademarks and registered designs said to have been infringed by counterfeit alloy wheels and badges sold in the UK.
- Note
- Registered outside the UK
Premier Alloy Wheels (UK) Ltd
Registered in England in October 2014 and based in Basildon. It remains an active company with a SIC code for other service activities, and holds no UK trademarks on the UK trademark register. It was later found jointly liable alongside other respondents in follow-up proceedings.
- Companies House
- 09260114 Active
- Incorporated
- October 2014
- Registered office
- Basildon
- Business activity
- Other service activities n.e.c.
- UK trademarks
- 0
What happened next
- The dispute returned to the High Court's Patents Court in 2020, where BMW succeeded on the substantive claims for trademark infringement and passing off.Source: Academic
- Academic commentary characterised the 2020 Patents Court decision as a favourable outcome for BMW in its long running pursuit of the counterfeiters.Source: Ideas
What others said about it
- CITMA's coverage points out that Premier Alloy Wheels (UK) Ltd was said to have provided logistical support within the wider counterfeiting operation.Source: Citma, November 2020
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: [2018] EWHC 1713 (Ch) on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 26 October 2026. Report an error.
