Quantum Advisory v Quantum Actuarial: LLP ordered to hand over all four trademarks
Quantum AdvisoryvQuantum Actuarial
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Judgment
- 14 March 2024
- Citation
- [2024] EWCA Civ 247
If you let another business run part of your operation under your brand, get the trademark ownership written down.
Quantum Advisory Limited and Quantum Actuarial LLP fought over four trademarks the LLP had quietly registered for itself while running part of Quantum Advisory's pension business. The Court of Appeal ruled Quantum Advisory should get all four.
What happened
Quantum Advisory Limited (Quad) and Quantum Actuarial LLP (LLP) had both traded under the mark QUANTUM ADVISORY since a 2007 reorganisation. Under a Services Agreement, LLP ran Quad's legacy pension business on Quad's behalf. Without telling Quad, LLP applied for and registered four trademarks in its own name between 2018 and 2019, a word mark, two device marks using a stylised Q, and a standalone Q device mark. Quad sued, arguing LLP was acting as its agent and fiduciary (someone who has to act in another's interests rather than its own) and had no right to register branding connected to Quad's business.
What did the court decide in Quantum Advisory v Quantum Actuarial?
The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that LLP was a fiduciary of Quad when it came to the legacy business, and that LLP's right to use the QUANTUM ADVISORY mark, even in its own business, lasted only as long as the Services Agreement. Any goodwill built up belonged to Quad as the licensor. Three of the four marks were similar or identical to Quad's mark and were rectified under section 10B of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The fourth, the standalone Q device, was not similar enough to fall under that section, but the court held LLP had still breached its fiduciary duty by registering it, so the register was rectified to transfer that mark to Quad on equitable grounds too.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that the loyalty duties of a fiduciary can reach further than the words of a trademark statute. Even a mark that wasn't similar enough to the main brand still got handed over because of the trust relationship between the two businesses.
- If one business operates another's brand under a services or licensing arrangement, it's worth putting trademark ownership in writing rather than leaving it to be inferred later.
- Registering a trademark quietly, without telling the business whose goodwill it relates to, is a risk even if the mark looks different enough to avoid the usual similarity test.
- A licence to use someone else's brand usually only lasts as long as the underlying agreement. Don't assume separate branding built during that period belongs to you.
Things to be aware of
- This case turned on a fiduciary relationship built up over years of running a business for another party. Not every commercial arrangement will create this kind of duty.
- The equitable claim over the Q device mark succeeded because it fell outside section 10B's scope, not because section 10B itself was wide enough to cover it. The two routes work differently.
- The ruling doesn't say contractual terms are irrelevant. The court looked closely at what the Services Agreement actually covered before deciding the licence was coterminous with it.
The businesses involved
Quantum Advisory Limited
Registered in Cardiff in December 2006 and still active. Provides pensions and employee benefits advisory services and holds four trademarks on the UK trademark register following this judgment.
- Companies House
- 06020436 Active
- Incorporated
- December 2006
- Registered office
- Cardiff
- Business activity
- Pension funding
- UK trademarks
- 4
Quantum Actuarial LLP
Registered in Cardiff in March 2007 and still active. Operated the legacy pension business on behalf of Quantum Advisory Limited and trades under the name Quantum Advisory. Holds no trademarks on the UK trademark register.
- Companies House
- OC326665 Active
- Incorporated
- March 2007
- Registered office
- Cardiff
- UK trademarks
- 0
What happened next
- Quantum Advisory's own website continues to describe Quantum Actuarial LLP as processing business on its behalf and trading as Quantum Advisory, consistent with the arrangement examined in the litigation.Source: Quantumadvisory
- New Square Chambers reported that judgment was handed down in the Court of Appeal in this case on 14 March 2024.Source: Newsquarechambers, March 2024
What others said about it
- One Essex Court's published judgment text notes LLP was 'thus in a position to establish goodwill of its own' through use of the marks in its own business, the point the court had to weigh against Quad's fiduciary claim.Source: Oeclaw, March 2024
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: [2024] EWCA Civ 247 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.
