Lifestyle Equities v Sportsdirect.com Retail: court allows six more defendants into trademark case

What happened

Lifestyle Equities owned the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademarks and was already suing Sports Direct group companies over clothing and, separately, over shower gels bearing the mark. Once the defendants explained where the gels had come from, Lifestyle Equities wanted to add six more parties to the claim: a former licensee, a director of a company that had since been liquidated, two linked "Trading Secrets" companies and the person who controlled them, and a trading company based outside the UK. Lifestyle Equities said each of them had been involved in putting the gels on the market without permission, or was a joint tortfeasor, meaning someone who shares legal responsibility for the same wrong alongside another party.

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

The judge found the claims against all six proposed new defendants had a reasonable prospect of success. Where someone was the sole director or controller of a company already accused of infringement, the judge treated that as enough, on its own, to infer they might share responsibility as a joint tortfeasor, unless there was evidence pointing to someone else as the person actually in control. The judge rejected arguments that a possible future stay of part of the case, linked to a separate challenge to one of the trademarks, or questions about jurisdiction, ought to block joinder now, treating those as separate issues to be dealt with later. The existing trial date was vacated and the gels and clothing claims were ordered to be tried together after October 2017.

What we learned from this

• What I'd take from this is that simply being the sole director or controller of a company accused of trademark infringement can be enough for a court to let a claimant add you personally to the case.
• If you run a company that licenses or supplies branded goods, it's worth keeping clear records of who in the supply chain authorised each step, in case a dispute reaches the people behind the company.
• Adding new defendants doesn't automatically delay the whole case forever, but it can push back the trial date while the new parties get up to speed.
• A possible future stay or a jurisdiction argument isn't guaranteed to stop a court from joining a party now. Those issues can be dealt with separately, later.

Things to be aware of

The businesses involved

What happened next

• Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited later changed its name to Frasers Group Trading Limited, as recorded on the Companies House register.Source: Find And Update

What others said about it

• Simmons & Simmons said the Court of Appeal's later decision in the continuing Lifestyle v Frasers litigation turned on whether trademark licences had been registered.Source: Simmons & Simmons, June 2026
• Shoosmiths said the Court of Appeal considered how the 'black hole' problem around unregistered trademark licences affected recovery in the ongoing case.Source: Shoosmiths, June 2026