The relevance of a crowded market and coexistence agreements when determining the likelihood of confusion between brands

This material was first published by Thomson Reuters, trading as Sweet & Maxwell, 5 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5AQ, in Entertainment Law Review – (2025) 36 Ent. L.R. Issue 1, and is reproduced by agreement with the publishers. For further details, please see the publishers' website. 

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by Lifestyle Equities from a decision of Mellor J, confirming that the Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club’s use of a clothing brand featuring a polo-player-on-horseback logo did not infringe Lifestyle Equities’ Beverly Hills Polo Club trade marks.

This article explores how a crowded market reduces the distinctive character of an earlier trade mark and the significance of existing coexistence agreements, when assessing the likelihood of confusion between trade marks.

You can read it in full here.