Lifestyle Equities v Santa Monica Polo Club: sorting out the injunction and costs after trial

What happened

Lifestyle Equities had already won at trial on trademark infringement and passing off over horse logo clothing. This hearing was about what happened next. The claimants wanted an injunction, delivery up or destruction of around £750,000 of stock, disclosure of sales figures, their costs, an urgent order to secure payment, and a publicity order. The defendants pushed back on most of this and asked for permission to appeal, plus a stay of the injunction while they tried to appeal.

What did the court decide in Lifestyle Equities CV v Santa Monica Polo Club?

The court narrowed the injunction so it did not cover the words "Santa Monica Polo Club" on their own, since that point had not been argued at trial. It ordered a staged process for erasing or destroying infringing stock, and disclosure of sales information in a cut down form. The claimants got 90% of their costs after an issue by issue reduction, plus an interim payment on account. The claimants' urgent application to secure payment was refused as premature, since proper notice had not been given and there was no immediate risk of assets disappearing. A publicity order was refused, as was permission to appeal. The court did grant a narrow stay of the injunction, but only as it applied to a later three horse sign the defendants had introduced, pending any application to the Court of Appeal.

What we learned from this

• What I'd take from this is that a trial win doesn't settle everything. The scope of the injunction, how much stock gets destroyed and who pays what in costs can still take another full hearing to resolve.
• Publicity orders are not routine. The court wants to see unusual circumstances before ordering one, and here the parties were already arguing about its wording, which counted against making one at all.

Things to be aware of

The businesses involved

What happened next

• Trade press later reported that Frasers Group, in a related trademark dispute with the same claimant over Beverly Hills Polo Club branding, succeeded in overturning a damages award on appeal.Source: Business Matters, May 2026

What others said about it

• IAM Stobbs points to the related Beverly Hills Polo Club v Santa Monica Polo Club case as a useful spotlight on when company directors can be personally liable for trademark infringement.Source: Iamstobbs, July 2024
• The Global Legal Post calls the later Supreme Court ruling a setback for brand owners, since it set a higher bar for proving a director knew enough to be personally liable.Source: The Global Legal Post, June 2024
• RPC's practical point: the Supreme Court's decision affects not just whether a director is liable, but how any order to hand over profits should be calculated.Source: RPC international law firm, July 2024