Lifestyle Equities v Sports Direct: court sets injunction scope, refuses publicity order

What happened

Lifestyle Equities had already won its case against Sports Direct group companies, over goods sold after a supplier went into administration. This case dealt with what came after that win: who in the group was actually liable, how wide the injunction stopping further sales ought to be, whether reputational damage could still be argued later, whether costs should be decided now or after a damages hearing, and whether Sports Direct's conduct should be publicised. Both sides also asked for permission to appeal parts of the earlier decision.

What did the court decide in Lifestyle Equities CV v Sportsdirect.Com Retail?

The court found the second defendant, a non-trading holding company, was not liable. The case against it had always been run against other companies in the group, even though the same senior employee worked across several of them. The court granted a broad final injunction against the remaining defendants, mirroring the trademark rights that had been infringed, rather than a narrow order tied to specific facts. It ruled Lifestyle Equities could still argue reputational damage when damages were worked out later. A request to publicise the ruling on Sports Direct's own website was refused as disproportionate and closer to punishment than remedy. Costs were put off until after that damages hearing, because of outstanding settlement offers still in play. Permission to appeal was refused to both sides.

What we learned from this

• What I'd take from this is that being part of a group doesn't automatically make every company in that group liable, even if the same manager works across several of them. Liability follows who the claim was actually run against.
• A trademark injunction, once a court grants it, is usually drafted broadly to match the legal right infringed rather than narrowly to the exact facts proven at trial.
• Asking a court to publicise a defendant's wrongdoing is a high bar. Courts can see this as punishment rather than a genuine remedy, and may refuse it.
• Costs and damages can be dealt with separately from the main liability finding, particularly where settlement offers are still unresolved.

Things to be aware of

The businesses involved

What happened next

• The company that was the defendant in this case was subsequently renamed Frasers Group Trading Limited, having previously traded as Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited.Source: Find And Update

What others said about it

• Simmons & Simmons: the later Court of Appeal ruling in the renamed Frasers Group case made registration of trademark licences the key issue for recovering losses.Source: Simmons & Simmons, June 2026
• Fieldfisher's practical point: registering a trademark licence is necessary, not just paperwork, if a licensee wants to recover losses later.Source: Fieldfisher, July 2026
• Shoosmiths: the Court of Appeal looked at how licensees avoid a 'black hole' where losses can't be recovered because a licence was never registered.Source: Shoosmiths, June 2026