Thomas Pink v Victoria’s Secret: shirt maker stops PINK store brand in the UK
Thomas PinkvVictoria's Secret UK
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 31 July 2014
- Citation
- [2014] EWHC 2631 (Ch)
Using a name abroad for years gives you no automatic right to use it once you expand into the UK or EU.
Thomas Pink, the Jermyn Street shirt maker, sued Victoria's Secret over its PINK-branded UK stores. The High Court found most of Victoria's Secret's use of PINK infringed Thomas Pink's trademarks.
What happened
Thomas Pink traded under the PINK brand from its Jermyn Street shirt business, holding both a UK trademark and an EU trademark (then called a CTM) covering its stylised PINK logo. From 2012 Victoria's Secret opened PINK-branded stores in the UK selling casual clothing, lingerie and accessories, a brand it had previously used only outside the UK. Thomas Pink sued for trademark infringement and passing off. Victoria's Secret counterclaimed, arguing Thomas Pink's marks were wrongly registered or had become open to revocation for non-use.
What did the court decide in Thomas Pink v Victoria's Secret UK?
The court found that Victoria's Secret's use of PINK on garments, slogans, free-standing shop fronts and brass nameplates created a likelihood of confusion with Thomas Pink's marks, and infringed. It also found a separate, broader kind of infringement, based on harm to Thomas Pink's reputation (diluting or tarnishing it), which caught even uses the court didn't think caused confusion, such as swing tags used inside stores. Confusion was not made out for those swing tags, or for Facebook posts combining VICTORIA'S SECRET and PINK, which the court found were not aimed at EU consumers. The counterclaims for revocation and invalidity mostly failed, though part of the EU trademark's specification was narrowed for non-use.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that a well-known global brand can still infringe when it brings a sub-brand into a new territory, however long it has used that name elsewhere. It's worth checking whether a name, logo or tagline you plan to use abroad is already registered or used in the UK or EU before you launch there. Using a mark in a slightly different form to how it's registered doesn't necessarily stop you keeping or defending that registration, provided the differences don't change its distinctive character. The same use of a name can be judged differently depending on whether the question is confusion between brands or wider harm to an established brand's reputation.
Things to be aware of
- The court treated Victoria's Secret's years of good faith use of PINK outside the EU as irrelevant to its defence; trademark rights are strictly territorial even for large multinational retailers.
The businesses involved
Thomas Pink Limited
Shirt maker founded in London's Jermyn Street, trading under the PINK brand. UK company registered in 1986, has 5 trademarks on the UK trademark register, and is now in liquidation.
- Companies House
- 01995666 Liquidation
- Incorporated
- March 1986
- Registered office
- Liverpool
- Business activity
- Non-trading company
- UK trademarks
- 5
Victoria's Secret UK Ltd
UK arm of the lingerie and clothing retailer based outside the UK. Incorporated in 2010, it opened PINK-branded stores in the UK from 2012 selling casual clothing, lingerie and accessories. The company was dissolved in 2022 and holds no trademarks on the UK trademark register.
- Companies House
- 07279467 Dissolved
- Incorporated
- June 2010
- Note
- Ceased November 2022
- Registered office
- Birmingham
- Business activity
- Other letting and operating of own or leased real estate
- UK trademarks
- 0
What happened next
- A costs ruling in January 2015 recorded that Thomas Pink was awarded 90% of its costs following the earlier liability judgment.Source: Rkllp, January 2015
- Trade press described the outcome as meaning Victoria's Secret was 'no longer in the pink' after losing the infringement claim.Source: Lexology, August 2014
What others said about it
- IPKat's detailed case note focused on how the court separated confusion based infringement from the broader dilution and tarnishment claim, with the same facts producing different results.Source: NIPC Law, August 2014
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: [2014] EWHC 2631 (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 27 October 2026. Report an error.
