Established Representative at the UK Intellectual Property Office — since 2008New scam warning · 27 Oct: Jones Hedley Trademark Website: A Real Firm’s…

Lifestyle Equities v two directors: directors made to account for their own profits, not the company’s

Jonathan Paton, Founder & CEO3 min read · Last reviewed 26 October 2026
Key factsPartly successful

Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anorvtwo directors

Court
Court of Appeal
Judgment
7 May 2021
Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 675
The lesson

Directors who personally drive infringing trading can be made to pay personally, but only their own profit.

Damages & costs: damages and costsOwnership & control: who owns the brandSomeone's copying me: trademark infringement
View the full case fileThe judgment, documents and timeline, with a free Temmy Portal login

Lifestyle Equities, owner of the BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB marks, chased two company directors personally after their business was found to have infringed with a SANTA MONICA POLO CLUB sign. The Court of Appeal ruled the directors were personally liable, but only for the profits they themselves had made, not the company's profits.

What happened

Lifestyle Equities owns the BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB trademarks. It sued a group of trading companies and their two directors over a SANTA MONICA POLO CLUB sign that was found to infringe. The trading companies went into insolvent administration, so Lifestyle turned to the directors personally, seeking an account of profits. That claim covered a company loan made to one director and a portion of both directors' salaries, on the basis that their close personal involvement in the infringing business made them liable alongside the company.

What did the court decide in Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anor v two directors?

The Court of Appeal held that someone jointly liable for a company's infringement as an accessory only has to account for the profits they personally made, not the company's total profits. It found the directors were rightly treated as joint tortfeasors (people jointly responsible for the wrong) because their personal involvement went well beyond the normal constitutional role of a director. An account of profits against them was a proper exercise of the court's discretion. One director's loan from the company wasn't treated as a profit while it remained outstanding and repayable, and income tax already paid on the salary amounts treated as profit was deducted from what the directors owed.

What we learned from this

  • What I'd take from this is that hiding behind a company doesn't protect a director who is personally driving infringing trading, even if that director never knew the trademark was being infringed.
  • A director's personal liability to pay over profits is capped at what they personally gained, not the company's wider profits.
  • Loans from a company to a director aren't automatically treated as personal profit while they remain genuinely repayable.
  • Income tax already paid on money later found to be profit can be deducted before a director has to hand it over.

Things to be aware of

  • This case is about personal liability for directors who are heavily and personally involved in the infringing conduct, not every director of a company that infringes a trademark.
  • The court didn't need to find dishonesty or even knowledge of infringement before making the directors personally liable, which some business owners might not expect.
  • The cap on accessory liability to the accessory's own profits doesn't reduce the company's own liability for the full scope of its profits.

The businesses involved

Claimant

Lifestyle Equities C.V

Owner of the BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB trademarks. Brought the infringement claim against the trading companies and, after those companies went into insolvent administration, pursued the directors personally.

The two directors (defendants)

Two individual directors of the trading companies behind the SANTA MONICA POLO CLUB sign, sued personally as accessories after the companies entered insolvent administration.

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: [2021] EWCA Civ 675 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.

Trusted by businesses across the UK & beyond
Latest from The Trademark HelplineKnowledge Hub
Article · Are You Fighting Someone Else’s Fight?Scam warning · Jones Hedley Trademark Website: A Real Firm’s Name on a Site Registered This WeekScam warning · Someone Searched Your Brand Name. Here’s Why We Sometimes Get in TouchNews · Has X Lost the Twitter Trademark? What the Bird and “Tweet” Ruling Means for RebrandsScam warning · Applegate Legal Services Trademark Notice: Same Letter, Same Phone Number as Hear LawNews · Harper Beckham’s Trademark: Registered in the UK, Refused in the USNews · Frank Bruno, Amazon and the ‘Replica’ Problem: Why Platforms Block Products That Look Gen…Scam warning · Hear Law Trademark Notice: Sent From a Website Registered the Night Before

Book your free 15-minute callChoose a day and time and a specialist will call you.

or call 0161 833 5400

Download Your Guide

Fill in the form below to access your free guide.