Iconix v Dream Pairs: Court of Appeal finds Dream Pairs logo infringes Umbro’s double-diamond trademark

What happened

Iconix, the holding company behind the Umbro brand, sued Dream Pairs Europe Inc over a logo used on footwear sold mainly through Amazon UK. Iconix said the logo was too close to Umbro's double-diamond trademark. The High Court disagreed, finding only very faint similarity between the two and no real risk that shoppers would confuse them, even allowing for how the logo might look after the shoes had been bought and worn. Iconix appealed, focusing on one of its two registered marks and on how the logo would actually appear to someone looking at worn shoes from a normal angle, rather than face on.

What did the court decide in Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe?

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had made two errors. First, the judge had treated one part of the Dream Pairs logo as a "dominant" feature, when the logo should have been assessed as a single, unified design. Second, and more importantly, the judge had not properly considered how the logo would be seen in real life, at an angle, on footwear being worn after purchase, rather than as a flat graphic viewed square-on. Looking at the evidence again itself, the Court of Appeal found a moderately high degree of similarity between the Umbro mark and the Dream Pairs logo once viewed that way. That similarity was enough to create a likelihood of confusion, so the court found infringement under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

What we learned from this

• What I'd take from this is that how a logo looks on a worn or carried product, not just in a side-by-side comparison, can be exactly what tips a case one way or the other.
• If you're assessing how close your logo is to a competitor's, it's worth looking at it from the angles customers will actually see it in daily use, not just flat on a screen.
• Winning at the High Court doesn't end the risk. This case shows a finding of no infringement can still be overturned on appeal.
• Treat a logo as a whole design when comparing it to another mark. Picking out one element as 'dominant' can be the wrong starting point.

Things to be aware of

The businesses involved

What happened next

• Dream Pairs took the dispute further, and the case eventually reached the UK Supreme Court, which addressed the relevance of post-sale confusion to infringement.Source: Hlc, June 2025
• DLA Piper reported that the Supreme Court confirmed post-sale confusion can be taken into account when assessing trademark infringement under UK law.Source: Dlapiper, June 2025
• Venner Shipley described the Supreme Court's decision as reaffirming the post-sale confusion doctrine, with Dream Pairs ultimately losing at that final stage.Source: Vennershipley, July 2025
• DWF characterised the Supreme Court ruling as a landmark clarification of how post-sale confusion should be treated in UK trademark disputes.Source: Dwfgroup, July 2025