Press Release
Press Release
Press Contacts: Erik Cummins, Matt Hyams, Taina Rosa, Olivia Meyer
09.09.26
A Pillsbury team led by London-based partner Steven James and counsel Hattie Winfield secured a significant victory in the High Court for client FLOWERBX, the luxury floral design brand, in trademark infringement proceedings against online florist Flowers Box London. The judgment represents an important outcome for FLOWERBX and confirms the strength and validity of the brand’s trademark.
FLOWERBX has spent over a decade building its reputation as a much-loved luxury provider of flowers and associated floral design services. That reputation has been founded on the quality of its products and creative services, earning the unequivocal trust of its customers, building a loyal community base across consumer and business clients. The High Court found in FLOWERBX’s favor following proceedings brought to protect its trademark and the considerable goodwill associated with the brand.
In its judgment, the Court found that the FLOWERBX trademark had acquired an “enhanced distinctive character,” with strong recognition dating back to early 2019. The Court also identified a high level of similarity between the FLOWERBX brand and the branding used by Flowers Box London, in circumstances where the relevant goods and services were identical. Significantly, the evidence before the Court demonstrated actual consumer confusion, including instances in which customers mistakenly believed that they were purchasing from FLOWERBX.
The judgment recognized FLOWERBX’s established reputation for “luxury and stylish floral design of the highest quality” and found that Flowers Box London had unfairly benefited from that reputation by “riding on the coat tails” of the FLOWERBX mark, resulting in a transfer of image and goodwill. The Court also found that Flowers Box London had no “due cause” for using the similar signs. The Court further confirmed that FLOWERBX’s trademark is valid, finding that it was inherently distinctive and had also acquired distinctive character through use, and rejected Flowers Box London's counterclaim that it was descriptive.
In reaching its conclusions, the judge also found FLOWERBX’s witnesses to be credible and reliable, while giving little weight to the evidence provided by Flowers Box London’s witness. The Court found infringement under both s 10(2)(b) (likelihood of confusion) and s 10(3) (unfair advantage from reputation) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.