Whitby Specialist Vehicles v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicles: copycat ice cream van ruled infringing
Whitby Specialist VehiclesvYorkshire Specialist Vehicles
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 17 December 2014
- Citation
- [2014] EWHC 4242 (Pat)
Funding or helping with copying can make you personally liable, even if you deny involvement.
Whitby Specialist Vehicles, the UK's largest ice cream van maker, sued a rival family firm for copying its van design and trademark. The design, design rights and trademark were all found to be infringed, and the father was held liable alongside his sons.
What happened
Whitby, which trades as Whitby Morrison and makes ice cream vans known as the Mondial, discovered that a rival family business had dismantled one of its vans, used the panels as moulds, and built copies. The copies matched Whitby's registered design, several unregistered design rights and carried the WHITBY MORRISON name on a mould. The father of the two sons behind the rival firm denied any part in it, but evidence showed the vans and parts were paid for by the father, the finished copies were insured in the father's own name, and the father had the skills in glass reinforced plastic moulding to help carry out the copying.
What did the court decide in Whitby Specialist Vehicles v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicles?
The court held Whitby's registered design was valid, because it created a different overall impression from the closest earlier design, and that the defendants' van infringed it. Most of the unregistered design rights relied on, except for the base frame, were original, not commonplace, and had been infringed. The WHITBY MORRISON trademark had been infringed through use of a mould bearing that name. On liability, the father was found personally liable for selling one infringing van, and jointly liable with the sons for the rest, based on the father's funding, participation in the physical copying, and the court's doubts about the father's denials.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that family businesses can't shield an individual from liability just by keeping their name off the paperwork. Funding the work and helping physically copy a product was enough to make the father liable here.
- Direct physical copying, using a rival's product as a mould, makes it far easier for a claimant to prove design right and registered design infringement.
- Using a competitor's name on tooling or a mould can still count as trademark infringement, not just use on a finished product sold to customers.
- Winning on liability doesn't end the case. Here the amount of damages or profits owed was left to a later hearing.
Things to be aware of
- The judgment decided liability but left the actual damages or account of profits, including how much the father owed for later sales, to a separate inquiry.
- Not every part of the design was protected. The base frame was found not to qualify for unregistered design right.
- The case was brought in the Patents Court rather than the cheaper Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, which has lower caps on damages and costs.
The businesses involved
Whitby Specialist Vehicles Ltd
Registered in England in 1973 and still active, manufacturing motor vehicle bodies from Crewe. Trades as Whitby Morrison and is described as the UK's largest ice cream van manufacturer. Holds 12 trademarks on the UK trademark register.
- Companies House
- 01095664 Active
- Incorporated
- February 1973
- Registered office
- Crewe
- Business activity
- Manufacture of motor vehicles
- UK trademarks
- 12
Yorkshire Specialist Vehicles Ltd
Registered in England in 2011 and dissolved in 2015, based in Leeds and classified under repair of other equipment. Reported to have made up to 30 ice cream vans before the dispute, and held no trademarks on the UK trademark register.
- Companies House
- 07767516 Dissolved
- Incorporated
- September 2011
- Note
- Ceased April 2015
- Registered office
- Leeds
- Business activity
- Repair of other equipment
- UK trademarks
- 0
What happened next
- A law firm reported that Whitby Specialist Vehicles Ltd succeeded in its claim against Yorkshire Specialist Vehicles Ltd and its directors, describing the outcome as a design success for its client.Source: Patents
- A trade press report observed that the Patents Court held the defendants' ice cream van infringed Whitby's registered design and that the design itself was valid.Source: Worldtrademarkreview, February 2015
What others said about it
- D Young & Co summarised the dispute, noting Yorkshire had made up to 30 vans before Whitby brought its claim.Source: D Young & Co, March 2015
- IPKat's commentary focused on how the physical copying of panels made out the case for both registered and unregistered design infringement.Source: NIPC Law, December 2014
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: [2014] EWHC 4242 (Pat) 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.
