In a significant victory for brand owners, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court found that FLOWERS BOX LONDON infringed FLOWERBX's registered UK trade mark and rejected the defendant's attempt to invalidate the FLOWERBX registration.
The court held that the FLOWERBX mark was valid, distinctive and had developed a strong reputation in the UK floral market, supported by substantial marketing activity, press coverage and business growth.
The defendant argued that "FLOWERBX" was descriptive and should not have been registered. The court disagreed, finding that the mark was not descriptive of the relevant goods and services and, in any event, had acquired distinctive character through extensive use.
The court also found a high degree of similarity between FLOWERBX and signs such as "FLOWERSBOX", "FLOWERS BOX" and "FLOWERS BOX LONDON". The evidence included numerous examples of actual customer confusion, with consumers mistakenly ordering from the defendant when they intended to buy from FLOWERBX.
As a result, the court concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion and that the defendant had also taken unfair advantage of FLOWERBX's reputation. The claimant therefore succeeded on its infringement claims under both sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
Key takeaway: The decision highlights the strength of protection available to businesses that have built significant brand recognition and demonstrates that courts will intervene where similar branding creates a real risk of consumer confusion, particularly in online markets.
Read the judgment: Flowerbx Limited v Flowers Box London Limited [2026] EWHC 2233 (IPEC).
