Lifestyle Equities v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club: strike out bid fails
Lifestyle Equities CVvRoyal County of Berkshire Polo Club
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 17 July 2019
- Citation
- [2019] EWHC 1872 (Ch)
A defence doesn't need to be certain to survive a strike out application, just arguable.
Lifestyle Equities, owner of polo-player logo trademarks, tried to strike out part of a defence and counterclaim brought by parties linked to Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club. The court refused, saying the issues needed a full trial.
What happened
Lifestyle Equities owns trademarks featuring a polo player logo and sued several defendants, including a licensing agent referred to as the TPL Defendants, claiming that logos used by Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club infringed those marks. The TPL Defendants argued the logos were not confusingly similar. As a fallback, they argued that even if there was some confusion, it didn't affect the origin function of the marks, meaning it wouldn't count as infringement. They also counterclaimed that Lifestyle Equities' own marks were invalid for lacking distinctive character. Lifestyle Equities applied to strike out large parts of this defence and the invalidity counterclaim before the case reached trial.
What did the court decide in Lifestyle Equities CV v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club?
The court refused to strike out any of the contested paragraphs. It found the non-infringement pleading was coherent when read as a whole, even though it ran several arguments in the alternative. On the invalidity counterclaim, the court accepted it was a novel argument but said it wasn't hopeless, given developing case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union on what the origin function of a trademark actually requires. The court held these were genuine factual and legal questions that needed evidence and argument at trial, not something that could be decided on the papers at this early stage.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that courts are often reluctant to shut down an alternative or novel defence early, as long as it's properly argued and not obviously doomed. If you're defending a trademark claim, running layered arguments, including a challenge to the claimant's own registration, is something worth considering rather than ruling out. Don't expect a strike out application to succeed just because an argument is unusual or hasn't been tried before. What matters is whether it's legally arguable on the facts pleaded.
Things to be aware of
- This was only a procedural ruling on whether the defence could proceed. The court made no findings on whether the logos actually infringe, whether there was confusion, or whether the marks are valid, all of which remain to be decided at trial.
The businesses involved
Lifestyle Equities CV
Owner of trademarks featuring a polo player logo, used as the claimant bringing infringement proceedings against the polo club and related defendants.
Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd
A company incorporated in 1985, based in London, operating sports facilities. It is still active and holds 13 trademarks on the UK trademark register. It runs a polo club near Windsor hosting tournaments.
- Companies House
- 01903088 Active
- Incorporated
- April 1985
- Registered office
- London
- Business activity
- Operation of sports facilities
- UK trademarks
- 13
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: [2019] EWHC 1872 (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.
