Iconix (Umbro) v Dream Pairs: High Court finds no infringement from DP logo trainers
Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARLvDream Pairs Europe
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 28 March 2023
- Citation
- [2023] EWHC 706 (Ch)
A famous logo doesn't automatically beat a different one, the visual comparison has to actually hold up.
Umbro's owner sued a footwear seller over a logo it said copied Umbro's famous double diamond mark. The High Court disagreed and dismissed the claim.
What happened
Umbro has used its double diamond logo on football kit and boots since the 1970s. Dream Pairs, a footwear seller trading on Amazon UK and eBay, had been using a separate DP logo on football boots, children's trainers and other shoes since 2018. Iconix, which owns the Umbro marks, sued Dream Pairs for trademark infringement, arguing the DP logo was close enough to the double diamond to cause confusion and to unfairly benefit from Umbro's reputation. Iconix also tried to have Dream Pairs' own UK trademark registrations cancelled on the same basis.
What did the court decide in Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe?
The judge accepted that Umbro's double diamond marks were highly distinctive and well known for football boots and kit. But when comparing the two logos directly, the court found only a very faint degree of visual similarity between the double diamonds and Dream Pairs' broken square containing a P shape. That wasn't enough to cause confusion among shoppers. The court also noted that Dream Pairs' listings on Amazon were clearly branded, which reinforced the lack of confusion. Because no meaningful link between the marks was established, the reputation-based claim for unfair advantage or damage also failed. The court dismissed all of Iconix's claims.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that owning a famous logo doesn't win the case on its own, the court still has to find the two marks actually look alike enough to confuse people.
- A well-known name, logo or tagline gets stronger legal protection, but strength of reputation can't substitute for a genuine visual resemblance.
- How a product is presented for sale, including clear branding on a marketplace listing, can count against a confusion claim.
- Reputation-based claims under trademark law still need the court to find a real link between the two marks in the shopper's mind, not just that one brand is famous.
Things to be aware of
- This High Court decision was later reversed in part, so the final legal outcome in this dispute changed at appeal stages not covered by this judgment.
- The decision turned on a close visual comparison of two abstract logos specific to this case, not a general rule about marketplace branding defeating confusion claims.
- The reputation-based claim failing here depended on there being no evidence the defendant's founder knew of Umbro's marks when designing the logo.
The businesses involved
Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL
A holding company that owns the Umbro trademarks, including the double diamond logo used on football kit and boots since the 1970s.
- Note
- Registered outside the UK
Dream Pairs Europe Inc
A footwear seller trading under the Dream Pairs brand on marketplaces including Amazon UK and eBay, using a DP logo on football boots and trainers since 2018.
- Note
- Registered outside the UK
What happened next
- The Supreme Court ultimately ruled on the case in 2025, with commentary noting that post-sale confusion can be sufficient to establish UK trademark infringement.Source: Hlc, June 2025
What others said about it
- Practical Law notes the High Court held two of Umbro's figurative marks were not infringed, underlining how fact-specific the visual comparison was.Source: Practical Law (Thomson Reuters), June 2025
- Lewis Silkin reports that the Court of Appeal later reversed this outcome, giving Umbro a success on trademark infringement that the High Court had denied.Source: Lewis Silkin, May 2024
- Lexology points out Dream Pairs pushed the dispute all the way to the Supreme Court, showing neither side treated the High Court result as final.Source: Lexology, June 2025
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: [2023] EWHC 706 (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.
