Arsenal Football Club Plc v a market trader: no duty to keep supplying a market trader wholesale
Arsenal Football Club Plcva market trader
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 26 February 2014
- Citation
- [2014] EWHC 781 (Ch)
A supply promise tied to a market usually ends if the business leaves that market altogether.
A market trader said a 2003 consent order meant Arsenal had to keep supplying merchandise wholesale. The High Court disagreed and dismissed the application to enforce it.
What happened
Arsenal had previously won a trademark infringement case against the defendant, a market trader who sold football merchandise from stalls near the club's stadium. That case ended with a 2003 consent order, a settlement agreement approved by the court, which required Arsenal to use reasonable endeavours to supply goods to the defendant at prices comparable to its lowest wholesale prices for other market traders. Over the following years Arsenal scaled back its direct wholesale supply to market traders and stopped it altogether in 2012. The defendant applied to enforce the order, arguing Arsenal had breached it by cutting off supply.
What did the court decide in Arsenal Football Club Plc v a market trader?
The court held that clause 7 of the 2003 order only protected the defendant from being treated worse than other market traders while Arsenal remained in the wholesale market. It did not require Arsenal to stay in that market or to keep supplying products it no longer offered to traders generally. Because there was no evidence Arsenal had singled out the defendant for worse treatment than anyone else, there was no breach of the order. The application for a declaration, a damages inquiry and a mandatory order requiring future supply was dismissed, and Arsenal recovered costs.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that a supply or pricing promise written into a settlement is usually tied to the business as it existed at the time, not a guarantee that business carries on forever.
- If you settle a trademark dispute with ongoing supply or pricing terms, get clear about what happens if either side changes how it trades in future.
- A consent order is read for what it actually says. Courts won't add an obligation to keep trading in a market just because that would help the other side.
- Enforcing an old order years later means proving the other side treated you worse than others in the same position, not just that circumstances changed.
Things to be aware of
- This is a dispute about interpreting an old consent order from earlier trademark litigation, not a fresh ruling on infringement or passing off.
- The outcome depends heavily on the specific wording of clause 7 and the facts of how Arsenal's wholesale business changed over time, so it won't translate directly to differently worded agreements.
- The defendant had previously been found to have infringed Arsenal's trademarks in the earlier case that led to this order.
The businesses involved
Arsenal Football Club Plc
Registered in London in 1910 as The Arsenal Football Club Limited. Still active, operating the professional football club and holding around 60 trademarks on the UK trademark register covering merchandise.
- Companies House
- 00109244 Active
- Incorporated
- April 1910
- Registered office
- London
- Business activity
- Activities of sport clubs
- UK trademarks
- 60
The market trader (defendant)
An individual trader who sold football merchandise from market stalls near Arsenal's stadium, previously found by the courts to have infringed Arsenal's trademarks.
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: [2014] EWHC 781 (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.
