Bargain Busting v Shenzhen SKE: Court of Appeal overturns injunction on trademark threats
Bargain BustingvShenzhen SKE Technology
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Judgment
- 8 May 2026
- Citation
- [2026] EWCA Civ 532
An injunction to stop trademark threat letters needs the challenger to show it's more likely than not to win at trial.
Bargain Busting sent letters warning SKE's distributors and retailers about trademark infringement. The Court of Appeal overturned an injunction that had stopped Bargain Busting sending more such letters, ruling the wrong legal test had been used.
What happened
Bargain Busting Limited (BBL) owns several UK trademark registrations connected to vape products. It sent letters to distributors and retailers of rival SKE's products, warning them of possible trademark infringement proceedings. SKE disputed that BBL's trademarks were validly registered and applied to the High Court for an interim injunction stopping BBL from sending any further threat letters while the underlying dispute over infringement and validity went to trial. The High Court granted that injunction. BBL appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing the wrong legal test had been applied in deciding whether to grant it.
What did the court decide in Bargain Busting v Shenzhen SKE Technology?
The Court of Appeal allowed BBL's appeal and set aside the injunction. An injunction stopping someone making threats restrains freedom of expression, so section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 applies. Under the general rule from Cream Holdings, that means the party seeking the injunction, here SKE, has to show it is more likely than not to succeed at trial, not merely that it has a reasonably arguable case. The trial judge had applied a lower threshold. Since SKE hadn't shown, and didn't even argue on appeal, that it met the higher standard, the injunction couldn't stand.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that stopping someone sending trademark warning letters is harder than it might look, because the court treats an injunction against threats as restricting free expression and sets a high bar for granting one.
- If you're accused of making unjustified threats and want an injunction to stop them, think about whether you can show you're more likely than not to win the underlying case, not just that you have an arguable one.
- If you're sending warning letters about infringement, remember that a dispute over whether your trademark is even validly registered can become central to any threats claim against you.
- Interim injunctions in trademark threats disputes can be overturned on appeal if the wrong legal test was used first time round, so don't assume an early win settles things.
Things to be aware of
- This is a Court of Appeal ruling on the correct legal test, not a final decision on whether BBL's trademarks are valid or whether its threats were justified; that still has to be decided at trial.
- The higher threshold under section 12(3) HRA 1998 applies specifically because an injunction against threats restricts freedom of expression, so it may not apply the same way to other types of trademark remedy.
- A separate contempt of court application brought by BBL against SKE and its solicitors in this same dispute was struck out, which is a different issue from the injunction appeal covered here.
The businesses involved
Bargain Busting Limited
Registered in England in 2013 and still active, based in Hillingdon and trading in non-specialised wholesale. It holds six UK trademark registrations relating to vape products on the UK trademark register.
- Companies House
- 08779948 Active
- Incorporated
- November 2013
- Registered office
- Hillingdon
- Business activity
- Non-specialised wholesale trade
- UK trademarks
- 6
Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd
A vape products supplier based outside the UK. Its distributors and retailers received letters alleging infringement of Bargain Busting's trademarks, prompting it to dispute the validity of those trademarks.
What happened next
- Coverage of the contempt application continued as part of the wider dispute between the two companies.Source: IPKat, April 2026
What others said about it
- Burges Salmon says the ruling puts the spotlight back on getting the unjustified threats regime right in intellectual property cases.Source: Burges Salmon, June 2026
- Farrer & Co frames the underlying High Court decision as a rare look at how freedom of expression is balanced against IP enforcement.Source: Farrer & Co, June 2025
- Shoosmiths describes the related strike-out of Bargain Busting's contempt application as an emphatic reminder that contempt is an exceptional remedy.Source: Shoosmiths
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: [2026] EWCA Civ 532 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.
