Nicoventures v The London Vape Company: shared “vape” wording wasn’t enough to confuse
Nicoventures HoldingsvThe London Vape
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 21 December 2017
- Citation
- [2017] EWHC 3393 (Ch)
Marks built from common industry words usually get a narrower scope of protection.
Nicoventures wanted to register a stylised "VAPE CO" logo, but The London Vape Company opposed it, pointing to its own "THE Vape.co" logo. Nicoventures won on appeal.
What happened
Nicoventures Holdings Ltd applied to register a stylised "VAPE CO" logo for e-cigarettes and related retail services. The London Vape Company Ltd opposed the application, relying on its own earlier "THE Vape.co" logo mark, registered for similar e-cigarette goods. The UKIPO Hearing Officer upheld the opposition and refused the application, finding there was a likelihood of confusion between the two marks, even while accepting that the opponent's mark had very low inherent distinctiveness because it was built from descriptive words.
What did the court decide in Nicoventures Holdings v The London Vape?
The High Court allowed Nicoventures' appeal. The court held that the Hearing Officer had made a legal error by not properly weighing up what it means for two marks to share only descriptive wording, here "vape" and "co", terms that describe the product and a generic business suffix rather than anything distinctive to either trader. Reassessing the comparison itself, the court found that the different stylised elements of each logo would carry more weight in a consumer's mind than the shared descriptive text. On that basis, there was no likelihood of confusion, and the opposition was dismissed.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that if your name or logo leans heavily on a word that just describes what you sell, like 'vape' for an e-cigarette business, you can't expect that word alone to stop a competitor using something similar.
- Where a mark's shared wording is descriptive or commonly used in the trade, the distinctive visual or stylised elements tend to matter more when comparing two logos.
- A UKIPO opposition decision can be overturned on appeal if the Hearing Officer hasn't properly factored in how weak a shared element really is.
- This doesn't create a fixed rule. Low distinctiveness in shared wording weighs against a finding of confusion, but it doesn't automatically rule it out either.
Things to be aware of
- The court was clear this isn't a bright-line rule: weak shared wording makes confusion less likely but doesn't make it impossible, so each case still turns on its own facts.
- The decision turned on how the marks looked and were styled, not just the words they contained, so businesses can't assume descriptive overlap is always safe.
The businesses involved
Nicoventures Holdings Ltd
Registered in England in December 2012 and still active, classified under head office activities. Holds a large portfolio of 510 UK trademarks on the UK trademark register, consistent with its role within a major tobacco group's vaping and nicotine products business.
- Companies House
- 08318038 Active
- Incorporated
- December 2012
- Registered office
- London
- Business activity
- Activities of head offices
- UK trademarks
- 510
The London Vape Company Ltd
Registered in England in March 2014 and still active, classified under retail sale of new goods in specialised stores. Holds no UK trademarks on the UK trademark register.
- Companies House
- 08955819 Active
- Incorporated
- March 2014
- Registered office
- Croydon
- Business activity
- Other retail sale of new goods in specialised stores
- UK trademarks
- 0
What others said about it
- IP/IT Update notes the appeal centred on how the court treated the shared descriptive elements in reassessing the likelihood of confusion between the two logos.Source: NIPC Law, January 2018
- A later UKIPO appointed person decision treats Nicoventures as a reference point for how much weight to give shared but non-distinctive wording when comparing two figurative marks.Source: Ipo, April 2023
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: [2017] EWHC 3393 (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 26 October 2026. Report an error.
