Lifestyle Equities v Copyrights Group: Beverly Hills Polo Club logo not infringed by Greenwich Polo Club branding
Lifestyle Equities CVvThe Copyrights Group
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 10 May 2021
- Citation
- [2021] EWHC 1212 (Ch)
A shared generic image, like a polo player on a horse, doesn't make two logos confusingly similar if the words are clearly different.
Lifestyle Equities, owner of the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademarks, sued a licensing agency and others over clothing and homeware branded Greenwich Polo Club. The court found the two brands were not similar enough to cause confusion, so the claim failed.
What happened
Lifestyle Equities owns the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademarks, which are licensed for clothing and homeware around the world. It sued The Copyrights Group, a licensing agency, its director, and Greenwich Polo Club, claiming that polo-horse-and-rider logos used alongside the words "Greenwich Polo Club" on goods sold outside the UK infringed its trademarks and amounted to passing off. The retailers who actually sold the goods had been removed from the case earlier, leaving the licensing side to defend the claim on its own.
What did the court decide in Lifestyle Equities CV v The Copyrights Group?
The judge found that both logos used a generic polo horse-and-rider image, but the dominant word elements, "Beverly Hills" against "Greenwich", were visually, aurally and conceptually very different. Looking at the marks as a whole, they were not similar, which was fatal to the confusion-based infringement claim. The reputation-based claim also failed because the evidence of reputation outside the UK specifically was too thin, and passing off failed for the same reasons as the trademark claims. The court also held that the licensing agency's promotional and administrative work was not "use in the course of trade" of an infringing sign, and the director could not be liable as a joint tortfeasor once the main claim fell away.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that owning rights in a popular motif, like a polo player on a horse, doesn't give you control over everyone else who uses a similar image. The word element of a logo often does the heavy lifting in telling brands apart.
- If you're licensing or managing a brand, keep clear records of what you actually promoted or authorised. The court looked closely at what the licensing agency had actually done, not just its general role.
- Evidence of reputation needs to match the territories where the alleged infringement happened. General brand fame elsewhere in the world didn't help the claimant's case in the territories at issue.
Things to be aware of
- This case turned on the specific comparison between these two marks. It doesn't mean polo-themed logos can never conflict with each other in other circumstances.
- The claim partly failed because of gaps in the evidence and how the case was pleaded, not only because the logos were different.
- A licensing agency wasn't found liable here partly because its activities didn't amount to using the infringing sign itself. That won't apply to every licensing arrangement.
The businesses involved
Lifestyle Equities CV
Owner of the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademarks, which are licensed for use on clothing and homeware internationally.
The Copyrights Group Ltd
A London-based intellectual property licensing and brand management agency, best known for managing the Paddington Bear franchise. It became a Vivendi/StudioCanal subsidiary in 2016.
What happened next
- The Copyrights Group was later rebranded as StudioCanal Kids & Family, continuing as part of the StudioCanal group's licensing operations.Source: Kidscreen, September 2024
- The Copyrights Group has continued to operate as a licensing agency for other franchises, including renewing a Paddington publishing deal with HarperCollins.Source: Corporate, October 2023
What others said about it
- Vivendi's own announcement of a renewed board for The Copyrights Group pointed to new ambitions for the business as a Vivendi subsidiary, a sign the group intended to keep investing in the licensing operation.Source: Vivendi, November 2018
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: [2021] EWHC 1212 (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.
