A client forwarded us an email on Thursday afternoon. It was headed “Formal Notice Regarding Potential Business Name Rights”, it cited four sections of the Trade Marks Act 1994, it was signed by a “Registered IP Solicitor” at Fenrick & Stone, and it gave them 72 hours to respond about a trademark application for their own company name.
Fenrick & Stone did not send it. The firm has said so publicly, and it has reported it to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
And we have seen this letter before. Two weeks ago we published a warning about the same notice, word for word, sent in the name of RSK Legal. Putting the two side by side, we think they are the work of the same people, and that a second newly authorised law firm has had its name taken.
What has Fenrick & Stone said?
Fenrick & Stone Limited is a real law firm. It is on the SRA register as a recognised body, SRA number 8013779, authorised for all legal services since 4 March 2026, with its head office at 5 Green Street, Bradford. Its SRA record names its company number, 16558752, which Companies House shows was incorporated in July 2025. It has no published regulatory decisions.
The firm has put a notice on its own website, fenrickandstone.com:
“We have recently become aware of an unauthorised website and email addresses impersonating Fenrick & Stone Limited. In particular, the website operating at: www.fenrickandstone.co.uk and email addresses using that domain have not been created, authorised or operated by Fenrick & Stone Limited.”
It says it has not started trading, is not taking instructions, does not run a Trademark Division, and has reported the matter to the SRA. It asks anyone who has had correspondence in its name not to pay, not to share confidential information and not to rely on it without checking.
The email our client received came from an address on fenrickandstone.co.uk.
What did the notice say?
It told our client their company name was going through “pre-filing due diligence and verification procedures”, cited sections 5, 5(4)(a) and 38 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Trade Marks Rules 2008, said trademarks go to whoever files first, and asked for a reply within 72 hours. It was signed:
Helen Jayne Chater, Registered IP Solicitor, 5 Green Street, Bradford, BD1 5HG. SRA: 372504. Website: https://fenrickandstone.co.uk/
The full email, redacted, is at the foot of this page.
Why does it look so convincing?
Because the details are real ones. 5 Green Street is the firm’s genuine head office on the SRA register and its registered office at Companies House. The phone number is a Bradford 01274 number. “Fenrick & Stone Solicitors” is the firm’s genuine trading name. Anyone checking the address against the register would find it matches.
That is the trick. Everything you would naturally check first is accurate, because it was lifted from public records. What gives it away is everything else.
What do the registers show?
The signatory is not at the firm. The SRA register lists one regulated person at Fenrick & Stone Limited, and it is not Helen Jayne Chater. Companies House lists one officer, and it is not her either.
The SRA number is not the firm’s. The notice quotes 372504. The firm’s number is 8013779. 372504 is the personal SRA number of a solicitor called Helen Jayne Chater, admitted in 2007, who holds a current practising certificate. Under “where this person works”, her record says: “There are currently no practices displayed for this person. This may be because they are not practising or because our policy is not to publish their contact details.” The register does not link her to Fenrick & Stone, and it neither confirms nor rules out any connection with this email. We think her name and number have been used in the same way as the firm’s name, as a real solicitor’s were in the RSK Legal notice, and we make no suggestion that she had anything to do with it.
This website is not on the firm’s SRA record. The SRA record for Fenrick & Stone Limited lists no website, email or phone number at all.
The website was three weeks old. fenrickandstone.co.uk was registered on 16 September 2026. The notice went out on 7 October. The firm registered fenrickandstone.com, carrying its warning, the same day.
The experience is impossible. The .co.uk site claims “15 Years Of Experience”, “A Proven 10-Year History”, “11,000+ trademarks filed since 2021”, “over 5000+ clients” and, on the same page, a “4.8 (8,090)” client rating. The company was incorporated in July 2025 and authorised in March 2026, and the firm says it has not started trading.
Its own terms name a website that does not exist. The Terms of Service say the site is “accessible from https://fenrickandstonesolicitors.co.uk/”, and the Privacy Policy says the same. That domain has never been registered.
Nobody is named, and nothing is numbered. No SRA number, no company number, no VAT number, no solicitor, no director, anywhere on the site.
The email came from a subdomain the site never mentions. The site publishes info@fenrickandstone.co.uk. The notice came from helen@ip.fenrickandstone.co.uk, which runs its email through a different provider from the rest of the domain.
Nothing on the trademark register supports the deadline. Nothing has been filed for our client’s name. An application not yet filed would not show, so that proves nothing on its own, but nothing corroborates the clock the notice started.
Two letters, one operation
The two websites are designed differently. Almost everything behind them is the same.
- The letter. Same subject line, same “pre-filing due diligence and verification procedures”, same four statutory references, same 72-hour deadline, same “Registered IP Solicitor” title.
- The target. Each borrows the name of a real firm newly authorised by the SRA: Fenrick & Stone in March 2026, RSK Legal in July 2026. Neither firm’s SRA record lists a website.
- The solicitor. Each is signed in the name of a real solicitor and quotes that solicitor’s personal SRA number, not the firm’s own number. In neither case does the register link the solicitor to the firm.
- The domain. Each .co.uk was registered through the same registrar, Dynadot, on Namecheap shared hosting, and used within three weeks: 13 days for RSK Legal, 21 for Fenrick & Stone.
- The sending address. Each notice came from a subdomain that appears nowhere on its website, notice.rsklegal.co.uk and ip.fenrickandstone.co.uk, and both subdomains route their email through Hostinger rather than the main domain’s provider.
- The claims. Each site claims years of experience the firm behind the name cannot have.
One of these could be a coincidence. Six of them is a method. We think the same people sent both letters, and that they look for law firms that have just been authorised and have not yet built a web presence of their own.
That also changes how we read the RSK Legal case. We kept open the possibility that RSK Legal Ltd’s name was being used by someone else. Having seen this one, we think that is now the likelier explanation.
What does the notice get wrong about the law?
There is no pre-filing verification process at the UKIPO, and nothing obliges an applicant or their adviser to write to anyone before filing. Section 38 is about publication and the opposition window after it. Sections 5 and 5(4)(a) are relative grounds, raised by the owner of an earlier right after publication, not by a new applicant’s agent beforehand. The Trade Marks Rules 2008 contain no 72-hour anything.
The first-to-file line is the giveaway. The UK register does broadly reward the first to file, but section 5(4)(a) exists precisely so that an earlier user of an unregistered name can oppose a later application, or have it invalidated, on passing-off grounds. The notice cites the very section that protects the person receiving it.
If somebody really does file for your name, you find out when it publishes in the Trade Marks Journal, and you then have two months to oppose. Nobody has to email you first.
Have we contacted the firm?
We have not written to Fenrick & Stone Limited on this occasion. The firm already knows about the impersonation and has reported it to the SRA. If anyone named here would like to respond, we will publish the response in full.
What does this mean for a new law firm?
Think about the route. The degree, the training, the qualification, years in practice, then the application to the SRA to run your own firm. You are authorised. You have not started trading. And somebody registers a domain in your name, builds a website in an afternoon using your real address and trading name, and starts sending pressure letters to strangers. The first you hear of it is when one of them checks.
Your reputation is the whole asset, and it is being spent before you have earned a penny from it. Fenrick & Stone has done the right things: a public warning on its own domain, and a report to the regulator. What would make the next step faster is a registered trademark.
Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service does not strictly require one: a complainant has to show Rights in the name and that the domain is an Abusive Registration, and Rights can include unregistered rights built up through use. But those have to be proved with evidence of trading, reputation and goodwill, and a firm that has not opened its doors has almost none. A registration is proof you simply hand over. Free mediation runs first, a summary decision costs £200, and the process takes roughly eight to twelve weeks. The newer the business, the more the registration is doing.
Is AI making these harder to spot?
Yes. A credible professional website used to take time and money. Now it takes an afternoon, and these two were built around real firms’ real details. Polish is no longer a signal.
What still gives them away is the practice behind them: fifteen years of experience on a three-week-old domain, terms that name a website nobody registered, a signatory who is not on the firm’s list, a registration number that is not the firm’s. Check what a site says about itself, and whether any of it holds up.
How do you spot your own name being used like this?
Nothing checks, when a domain is registered, whether the buyer has any right to the name. The first a business usually hears is when a customer forwards something and asks whether it is really them. That is why TMH Monitoring covers domain registrations and social media accounts as well as the trademark registers. A trademark watch tells you about applications; it does not tell you about a domain registered on a Wednesday and emailing your customers within three weeks.
What to look out for
- A deadline in hours. Trademark law does not work in 72-hour windows.
- A competing applicant who is never named. A real application has a number and an owner. Ask for them.
- An SRA number. Thirty seconds on the SRA register. Does it return a firm or a person? Is that person listed at the firm on the letter?
- The firm’s own website. Search for the firm yourself rather than following the link in the email. Here, that leads straight to the firm’s warning.
- How old the website is. A free WHOIS lookup shows when a domain was registered.
- A correct address. It proves nothing. Registered addresses are public, and this one was accurate.
The same pattern runs through our warnings on RSK Legal, St Nic’s Legal Services, Knighton Legal Services, MA & Co Law and Alethea Law. Our guide on how to spot trademark scams before they cost you covers it in full, and the complete directory is at trademark scams.
What to do if you have had one
- Don’t reply to the deadline. Nothing happens at hour 73.
- Send it to us. Call 0800 077 8830 or forward it, and we will tell you what the registers show. No charge, no obligation.
- Report it. The IPO publishes guidance on misleading trademark payment requests and collects these at misleadinginvoices@ipo.gov.uk. If money has changed hands, contact Action Fraud on 0300 123 2040. If a law firm’s name or a solicitor’s number has been used, tell the SRA, and tell the firm.
- Stop the letters arriving. Our Care of Address service puts our address on your trademark record instead of yours.
The email in full
Reproduced as it arrived. Our client’s name, email address and company name are redacted; everything else, including any typos, is exactly as sent.
From: helen@ip.fenrickandstone.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday 7 October 2026, 13:59
To: [CLIENT NAME REDACTED]
Subject: Formal Notice Regarding Potential Business Name RightsHello [CLIENT NAME REDACTED],
This correspondence constitutes a formal verification notice issued by the Trademark Division of Fenrick & Stone Limited in relation to a proposed trademark application for the mark “[CLIENT BRAND]“, which is presently undergoing our pre-filing due diligence and verification procedures prior to any formal submission to the UK Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”).
The proposed application remains under internal review and has not yet been submitted to the UKIPO. In accordance with our pre-filing due diligence obligations, and having regard to the Trade Marks Act 1994, including, where relevant, Sections 5, 5(4)(a) and 38, together with the Trade Marks Rules 2008, we are required to make reasonable enquiries to determine whether any earlier rights or competing commercial interests exist which may be material before our verification process is concluded.
Our enquiries indicate that you may have used, or may presently be using, the name “[CLIENT BRAND]” in the course of trade. We are therefore writing to provide you with an opportunity to clarify your position before the proposed application progresses further.
Our review specifically concerns:
- Potential prior use in the course of trade capable of giving rise to enforceable rights under Section 5(4)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994; and
- Any grounds which may be relevant under Section 5, including unregistered rights, trade names, goodwill, or other earlier interests.
Accordingly, we request that you confirm, within 72 hours of receipt of this notice, whether:
- You or your organisation have used, or are presently using, the name “[CLIENT BRAND]” within the United Kingdom; and/or
- You assert any legal, commercial, equitable or other protectable interest in that name.
If you consider that the proposed application conflicts with any earlier rights held by you, we invite you to provide a written response together with any supporting evidence you wish us to take into account before our verification process is concluded.
Please note:
- This notice forms part of our pre-filing verification process and is intended to ensure that any apparent prior user has the opportunity to clarify their position before the proposed application progresses.
- In the absence of a response within the above timeframe, our verification process will be concluded on the basis of the information available to us at that time.
- If no competing rights are identified during that process, the proposed application may proceed in accordance with the instructions received.
- Once an application has been filed, any issues relating to earlier rights may need to be addressed through the procedures provided under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the applicable UKIPO process.
You may also wish to note that the UK trade mark system generally operates on a first-to-file basis, subject to any earlier rights recognised under the Trade Marks Act 1994. Accordingly, if you are actively trading under the name and wish to formalise or protect any rights you consider you have acquired through prior use, you should notify us within the above timeframe so that your position may be taken into account before our verification process is concluded.
For compliance, audit and evidential purposes, all communications relating to this matter should be made in writing.
This matter is presently under verification. We should therefore be grateful to receive your response within the stated timeframe to enable the verification process to be concluded before the proposed application progresses further.
Yours faithfully,
Helen Jayne Chater
Registered IP Solicitor
Phone: +44 1274066113
Address: 5 Green Street, Bradford, BD1 5HG, England
SRA : 372504
Website: https://fenrickandstone.co.uk/
Have you had one of these?
We build these pages from what clients forward to us. If something like this has landed in your inbox, send it over, redact whatever you like, and we will look into it properly.
