One of our clients recently received another trademark warning email — and this one is worth writing about, because the client actually replied. That meant we could see not just the first approach, but what happened next.
The email came from an address on the domain notice.knightonlegalservices.co.uk, under the subject line “Legal Notice on Business Name and Domain Conflict.” It sounds serious. That is the point.
The message claimed another party was preparing to file a UK trademark application for our client’s brand name, and gave them just 48 hours to confirm whether they intended to object. It referenced the UKIPO, the Trade Marks Act 1994, Section 5(4)(a), earlier rights, prior use, Nominet domain disputes and “mandatory pre-filing due diligence” — enough legal language to make a business owner think, “I had better take this seriously.”
To their credit, our client did take it seriously. They did not pay anything. They replied, explained their position, and then came to us. Below is the full picture of this Knighton Legal Services scam email, why it follows a familiar pattern, and what to do if you receive a similar “Legal Notice on Business Name and Domain Conflict.”
The first email
The first email was headed “Legal Notice on Business Name and Domain Conflict” and read:
Hi [name],
We write on behalf of the Trademark Division of Knighton Legal Services regarding a pending application for the mark “[brand name]”, which is scheduled for imminent submission to the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO).
This correspondence constitutes a formal legal notice issued as part of our mandatory pre-filing due diligence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and UKIPO regulatory practice.
Following an internal rights assessment, your organization has been identified as a party that may hold prior commercial or legal interests in the name “[brand name]” within the United Kingdom. As such, your position must be clarified before the application proceeds further.
Our review specifically concerns potential prior use in the course of trade under Section 5(4)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, and any grounds for opposition under Section 5, including unregistered rights, trade names, goodwill or other earlier interests.
You are hereby required to confirm, within 48 hours of receipt of this notice, whether you have used the name within the United Kingdom, and/or whether you assert any legal, commercial or equitable rights in respect of it.
In the absence of a response within 48 hours, we will proceed on the recorded basis that no objection or competing rights are being asserted; such non-response may significantly limit your ability to challenge, oppose or enforce rights against the mark at a later stage; and the application will proceed without further notice to you.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, should you be actively trading under the name and wish to secure exclusive statutory protection, we are able, subject to your immediate written instructions, to prioritise the preparation and filing of a UK trademark application on your behalf ahead of the current submission.
That last part is important. After several paragraphs of legal pressure, the email offers to file a trademark application for the recipient. It is the familiar pattern we keep seeing with trademark scam emails: create urgency, create fear, then offer the solution.
The client replied
Our client replied and explained that they had used the name for a coaching programme since around 2018. They also had LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook pages under the name, live events, a podcast, the matching domain, and several years of public use.
Understandably, they were concerned. If someone tells you another party may be about to register the name you have built a business around — and that you have only 48 hours to act — that is going to get your attention. That is exactly why these emails work: they are written to make owners feel they must respond before they have had time to check whether the issue is real.
Then the tone changed
After our client replied and explained their position, the response was much softer:
I completely understand your concerns, and I would like to reassure you that this is not intended as a threat to your business or your continued use of the name.
Our purpose in contacting you was simply to make you aware that we are acting on behalf of another party that is seeking to register “[brand name]” as a UK trademark. As part of that process, we routinely contact businesses or individuals who may have an interest in the name to ensure they are aware of the application before it proceeds.
We are not asking you to stop using your name, nor are we suggesting that you must make any immediate changes to your business. If you would like to discuss the matter further or have any questions about the trademark process, I would be happy to assist.
That shift in tone is revealing. The first email reads like a formal legal notice, with a 48-hour deadline and a warning about losing rights, followed by an offer to file a trademark application urgently. The reply then says it was never a threat and that the client is not being asked to stop using the name. Our client did the right thing: they questioned the email, explained their position, and came to us before paying anything or giving instructions.
What we checked
We carried out some initial checks. At Companies House, Knighton Legal Services Ltd exists, and appears to have changed its name from The Indian Wrap Limited to Knighton Legal Services Ltd in August 2025. The latest accounts we reviewed were for a dormant company.
That stood out. The website appears to offer trademark services, but the company information we reviewed suggests a dormant company position. That does not automatically prove wrongdoing, but it is something a business owner would reasonably want to understand before engaging.
The people behind the company
Companies House lists Aaron Anant Patel as an officer of Knighton Legal Services Ltd, with the nature of business recorded as “74990: Non-trading company.” Based on the information reviewed, this appears to be the only company the director is associated with. None of this proves the website and company are connected in the way the email suggests — and that ambiguity is part of the problem.
The name in the email footer
The email footer used the name Fiona Guest, described as a Registered IP Solicitor, together with an SRA number — details that can make correspondence look more credible. However, we have not verified that the person named is genuinely connected to the website or to the correspondence sent to our client. We are not saying a genuine solicitor sent the email; we are saying the email uses a name and regulatory-style details in a way a recipient might reasonably rely on. Before paying money or giving instructions, always verify that the named person is genuinely connected to the organisation contacting you.
The website
The website presents Knighton Legal Services as providing trademark filing services, but it raised questions:
- The company details are not clearly explained in the footer.
- The address used in the email is 229 Darlaston Road, Wednesbury.
- One form page appears to include an American-style default phone number, despite the business presenting itself as England-based.
- We could not clearly verify the connection between the website, the company and the person named in the email.
These are not things most SME owners should be expected to investigate — but they matter. If a business is sending formal legal-style notices and offering trademark filing services, the identity of the business behind the service should be clear.
The UKIPO representative check
The UKIPO showed a representative called “Knightons” with one trademark under it. At this stage, that appears unlikely to be associated with this correspondence, but it is exactly the sort of thing that can create confusion when businesses are trying to verify who they are dealing with. A recipient should not have to guess.
Why this concerns us
This is not just about one email. We are seeing a pattern. Businesses are being contacted out of the blue and told that another party is about to file for their brand, that they have been identified as a prior user, that they have a short deadline to respond, that they may lose rights if they do nothing — and that the sender can help them file urgently.
That pattern is concerning because it creates pressure. Not every email about a trademark conflict is fake, and not every warning about a competing application is wrong. But when a message uses legal language, short deadlines and fear of losing a business name, it needs to be checked carefully.
The 48-hour deadline
The 48-hour deadline is one of the biggest red flags. Real trademark issues can be urgent, but a genuine legal issue should be capable of withstanding basic due diligence. You should have time to check whether there is actually a pending application, who the competing applicant is, who the sender is acting for, whether the sender is regulated, whether the named person is genuinely involved, and whether you already have rights. A pressure tactic relies on you not asking those questions. A quick free trademark search is often enough to see whether a real application even exists.
What should you do if you receive one?
If you receive an email from Knighton Legal Services — or any similar organisation — claiming that someone else is about to register your brand, slow down. Before replying, calling or paying, check:
- Is there actually a UK trademark application?
- Is the sender genuinely acting for a real applicant?
- Is the person named in the email connected to the firm?
- Is the company active and trading?
- Does the website clearly identify the legal entity behind the service?
- Is the firm regulated, and does the regulator listing match the website and email?
- Do you already have rights in the name?
If you have a trademark representative, forward the email to them. If you do not, get a second opinion before making any payment or giving instructions. Using a representative’s Care of Address also keeps your details off the public register, which reduces this kind of scam mail at source.
Have you received a similar email?
If you have received a “Legal Notice on Business Name and Domain Conflict” from Knighton Legal Services, or a similar email from another organisation, we would be interested in seeing it. We are continuing to build a picture of these approaches so we can help SMEs understand what is real, what is questionable, and what should be ignored.
As always, if in doubt, ask questions first and reach for your wallet second.
