Blooming Confusion and the Importance of Cultivating a Reputation: Flowerbx Ltd v Flowers Box London Ltd

Background
FLOWERBX was founded in 2015 by Whitney Bromberg Hawkings, who had worked for many years in the fashion industry, including as Senior Vice President of Communications at Tom Ford. Frustrated by the absence of an online solution for elegant, modern flowers for the high-end fashion business, she launched FLOWERBX, choosing a name she felt would “sound modern, disruptive and fashion-forward.” The business initially targeted consumers directly but quickly developed a B2B model supplying flowers for fashion shows, luxury shops and high-end restaurants. FLOWERBX registered a UK trade mark for the word FLOWERBX in 2017 in a number of classes of goods and services, including for flowers, cut flowers, dried flowers and floristry services.

FLOWERBX’s fashion-world credentials proved central to the case. Collaborations included work with designer Emilia Wickstead, installations for Jimmy Choo and a large-scale installation outside Annabel’s in Mayfair for the Chelsea Flower Show. Press coverage spanned numerous publications, including The Telegraph, Forbes and Elle UK, with one press article describing FLOWERBX as having “become a favourite of the fashion set.” By June 2026 it had acquired a substantial social media following, and UK turnover had grown to approximately £4.3 million.

The Defendant, Flowers Box London Ltd, was incorporated in April 2019. It sold flowers and gifts online under the signs FLOWERSBOX, FLOWERS BOX and FLOWERS BOX LONDON, in part targeting the luxury market. After FLOWERBX issued the claim in 2025, the Defendant applied to register its own marks and counterclaimed that FLOWERBX was invalid as descriptive under section 3(1)(c) of the Act.

The Descriptiveness Challenge
The Defendant argued FLOWERBX was simply a stylised rendition of the descriptive term “flower box” and should never have been registered. The Court accepted the mark would be seen, heard and pronounced as “flower box,” but held this was insufficient to establish descriptiveness for the specific goods and services in issue, namely, flowers, plants and related retail services.

Crucially, there was no evidence that the average consumer would recognise “flower box” as having an established descriptive meaning for these goods and services. Unlike well-known compound terms such as “shoe box” or “horse box,” “flower box” was not a term the public would associate with flowers or floral retail services. Even if understood as referring to a gift box for flowers, that would describe the box rather than the flowers within it. The mark was held inherently distinctive.

The Court also held that FLOWERBX had acquired distinctiveness. FLOWERBX’s growth, marketing spend, and substantial press and social media coverage, driven substantially by its fashion-world positioning, were sufficient to establish that a significant proportion of the relevant public identified the goods as originating from the Claimant. This distinctiveness had been acquired by April 2019 (the date of the Defendant’s incorporation) and had reached at least a medium level by the date of the counterclaim.

Infringement Under Section 10(2): Likelihood of Confusion
The Court found a high degree of visual, aural and conceptual similarity between FLOWERBX and the Defendant’s signs FLOWERSBOX, FLOWERS BOX, and FLOWERS BOX LONDON. The addition of “London” or a stylised gold letter “B” in a logo was held insufficient to distinguish the marks.

Particularly compelling was the substantial amount of documentary evidence of actual confusion (the volume and nature of which was particularly striking): Customers repeatedly placed orders with the Defendant believing they were dealing with FLOWERBX, Trustpilot reviews were credited to the wrong company, and a Serpentine Gallery representative contacted the Defendant believing it was FLOWERBX (the Gallery’s prior supplier). The Defendant argued these were mere “administrative errors,” but the Court rejected this, applying Arnold LJ’s reasoning in TVIS Ltd v Howserv Services Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1103, and found infringement under section 10(2)(b).

Infringement Under Section 10(3): Unfair Advantage of Reputation
The section 10(3) claim is perhaps the most significant element of the judgment for luxury brand owners. The Court found that FLOWERBX had established a reputation by April 2019 and observed that the threshold for establishing a reputation under section 10(3) is not a high one. Significantly, the reputation relied upon was not in floral design generally, but in the more specific category of “luxury and stylish floral design of the highest quality.” Against that backdrop, the Court was satisfied that FLOWERBX enjoyed the requisite degree of recognition among a significant part of the relevant public, notwithstanding the absence of evidence that it occupied a substantial share of the UK flower market as a whole. Instead, FLOWERBX relied on its premium positioning, and was assisted in that regard by its collaborations with fashion designers, famous brands, high-profile installations and consistent coverage in national publications such as Elle and The Telegraph, as well as evidence of a significant social media presence in comparison to other key players such as Interflora. High-end fashion brands used FLOWERBX “for a supreme luxury experience … for events, gifting and large-scale installations.”

The Court also attached weight to evidence demonstrating the quality of FLOWERBX’s offering in finding that it had a reputation. Hawkings explained that FLOWERBX flowers are “cut to order” rather than held in stock, ensuring exceptional freshness, and the Judge noted that this focus on quality was reflected in a number of the press articles relied upon. This is a useful reminder that evidence showing a brand has become known for a particular quality or characteristic may be as important in establishing reputation as evidence of sales or market share.

In terms of the infringement, the Judge applied the Court of Appeal’s analysis in Thatchers v Aldi [2025] EWCA Civ 5, and found the Defendant had taken unfair advantage of FLOWERBX’s reputation through the objective effect of its use of confusingly similar signs, a “transfer of image,” even without proof of subjective intent. The Defendant’s due cause defence, based on possible innocent adoption of the signs from 2017, failed because mere initial innocence was insufficient once the Defendant became aware of confusion from at least July 2019 onward.

Practical Implications
This decision offers several important takeaways for brand owners:

1. Marks which phonetically mirror descriptive terms can nonetheless be inherently distinctive where the relevant compound term lacks an established descriptive meaning for the specific goods or services at issue. Brand owners should not be deterred from seeking protection for creative names merely because the mark evokes a descriptive concept.
2. The judgment underlines the value of building and documenting a brand’s reputation; in this case, it was through fashion-industry collaborations, luxury positioning and press coverage. FLOWERBX’s record of fashion partnerships, installations and media exposure was central not only to the acquired distinctiveness finding but, critically, to the Court’s conclusion on reputation and unfair advantage under section 10(3). The decision is also a useful reminder that the threshold for establishing a reputation is not especially high. Brand owners should not hesitate to define the reputation relied upon with an appropriate degree of specificity. Here, FLOWERBX was held to have a reputation for “luxury and stylish floral design of the highest quality,” demonstrating that a strong reputation within a well-defined premium segment may be sufficient to attract the enhanced protection afforded by section 10(3).
3. Following Thatchers v Aldi, unfair advantage under section 10(3) can be established through the objective “transfer of image” from a reputed mark, without proof of subjective intent. For luxury and fashion brands, whose value often lies precisely in their image and associations, this is a powerful enforcement tool.

Finally, brand owners should act promptly on discovering instances of actual confusion and maintain comprehensive records of marketing spend, press coverage and consumer recognition, all of which proved decisive in this case.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP represented FLOWERBX Limited in this case.