Lifestyle Equities v Sportsdirect.com: licence clause blocked one claim, imports infringed another
Lifestyle Equities CVvSportsdirect.Com Retail
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 20 April 2018
- Citation
- [2018] EWHC 728 (Ch)
If only one group company holds the licence, make sure that company actually buys and deals with the goods.
Lifestyle Equities sued Sports Direct group companies for selling Beverly Hills Polo Club branded goods outside its licence. The court found one claim was barred by a settlement clause in the licence, but later unlicensed imports did infringe.
What happened
Lifestyle Equities owns and licenses the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademarks. It sued several Sports Direct group companies over two separate episodes. The first was the 2013 sale of unauthorised equestrian goods. The second involved goods imported and sold after 2014, outside the terms of a licence agreement that Lifestyle had with West Coast Capital (USC) Ltd. Instead of WCC handling these goods, another Sports Direct entity bought and distributed them. Lifestyle also claimed that Republic, which bought the USC business out of administration, induced WCC to breach the licence by acquiring stock meant only for USC's own stores.
What did the court decide in Lifestyle Equities CV v Sportsdirect.Com Retail?
The court found that a settlement and waiver clause in the licence agreement, interpreted under the governing law of the agreement, protected the Sports Direct group companies from the 2013 equestrian goods claim. But goods imported after the licence began, by a Sports Direct entity that was not the licensee, fell outside any consent given by the trademark owner. Those dealings infringed the marks. Republic was found liable for inducing WCC to breach the licence by selling stock outside the agreed channel. On the counterclaim, the UK trademark's specification was narrowed for non use, but the EU trademark registration survived in full.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that informal arrangements between group companies can quietly undo the protection a licence is meant to give. Here, goods moved through an unlicensed Sports Direct entity instead of the actual licensee, and that was enough to strip away the consent the trademark owner had given.
- If a licence names one company as the licensee, keep the buying and selling inside that company. Letting an affiliate handle the goods instead can turn a licensed sale into an infringing one.
- Settlement clauses in licence agreements can protect related companies beyond the two signatories, but whether they do depends heavily on the governing law of the contract, which may not be English law.
- Buying a business out of administration doesn't automatically inherit the seller's licence rights. Check what the licence actually permits before acquiring stock tied to it.
Things to be aware of
- The outcome depended heavily on detailed findings about which individuals at the companies knew what, and when, so the reasoning is tied closely to these particular facts.
- The settlement clause was construed under the governing law of the agreement, which differs from English law on contract interpretation, so the result may not transfer directly to licences governed by English law.
- This judgment was followed by further litigation between the same parties over related trademark licensing issues, so it was not the final word in the dispute.
The businesses involved
Lifestyle Equities CV
Owner and licensor of the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademarks. Brought the infringement claim against the Sports Direct group companies over unlicensed sales and imports.
Sportsdirect.Com Retail Ltd
Retail group company, later renamed Frasers Group Trading Limited. Part of the Sports Direct group involved in the import and sale of the branded goods at issue.
What happened next
- The company formerly known as Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited was later renamed Frasers Group Trading Limited, reflecting the wider rebranding of the Sports Direct business under the Frasers Group name.Source: Find And Update
What others said about it
- Simmons & Simmons says the later Court of Appeal ruling in the renamed Frasers Group proceedings underlines how important it is to register trademark licences properly.Source: Simmons & Simmons, June 2026
- Fieldfisher warns that the Court of Appeal treated licence registration as necessary, not just administrative, for a licensee to recover losses.Source: Fieldfisher, July 2026
- Shoosmiths frames the Court of Appeal's later decision as a lesson in avoiding a registration 'black hole' that can leave licensees unable to claim.Source: Shoosmiths, June 2026
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: [2018] EWHC 728 (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.
