Station Road, Sidcup

How can we help?

Please fill in this form and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Please enter your name
Please enter your email address
Please enter your telephone number
Please enter a question
Please let us know how you heard about us
Please enter the verification code

We’ll only use this information to handle your enquiry and we won’t share it with any third parties. For more details see our Privacy Policy

Luxury Car Maker Defeated in David v Goliath Trade Mark Dispute

Trade marks are a powerful means of protecting your unique brand, even against much larger or more prestigious potential competitors. In one case, a small clothing company which sold its wares under the name 'Bentley' scored a High Court win over household name car manufacturers Bentley Motors.

'Bentley' marks had been used in connection with a clothing company – reflecting the surname of its founder – since 1962. The current proprietor of the marks, and their exclusive licensee, launched proceedings against Bentley Motors after it began to sell clothing and headgear bearing 'Bentley' labels.

Bentley Motors argued that the appearance of the word on its clothing products was accompanied by its well-known motif, featuring a capital letter B with wings, thus doing away with any risk of confusion. The Court, however, found that an average consumer would perceive the motif and the word 'Bentley' as two distinct signs used simultaneously, with the latter being afforded greater prominence.

It mattered neither that the clothing company was a modest enterprise that had made no large-scale use of its marks, nor that its reputation was dwarfed by that of Bentley Motors. There was a real likelihood of consumer confusion between the clothing company's marks and Bentley Motors' labels.

Bentley Motors, the Court found, had engaged in a policy of 'grandmother's footsteps' in relation to the clothing company, gradually increasing the use of 'Bentley' labelling on its clothing products in a way that steadily encroached on the latter's goodwill. It could not therefore be said to have made honest concurrent use of the word in connection with its clothing range.

The finding of infringement meant that Bentley Motors was entitled to continue to sell jackets, silk ties, caps and scarves, as it had done for many years, but no other types of clothing or headgear. It was entitled to advertise those goods by means of literature bearing the 'Bentley' name, but not to use that word on the goods themselves or other material attached to the goods.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.