Victoria’s Secret loses battle over Pink trade mark

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Victoria’s Secret loses battle over Pink trade mark

Victoria’s Secret has suffered a setback in its attempt to roll out its Pink brand globally, after a UK judge ruled that it infringed the trade mark rights of shirt maker Thomas Pink

pink-logo.png

Sitting the England & Wales High Court, Mr Justice Birss agreed with Thomas Pink that there was a risk of association between the two brands. The ruling is dated July 31.

Thomas Pink has been trading since 1984. The company owns two device trade marks (one UK and one CTM) incorporating Pink (CTM mark shown right). It brought the case in May 2013.

Victoria’s Secret launched its Pink brand, aimed at college girls, in the United States in 2004. It opened its first UK store in 2012 and has also opened stores using the Pink name (left).

pink-store-250.png

Birss rejected arguments that the trade marks were descriptive, and found that “given the very extensive use of the CTM over a lengthy period and given all the other evidence of distinctiveness such as the evidence of the claimant’s staff witnesses” the UK mark had acquired distinctive character.

However, he did slightly narrow the specification for some of the goods and services covered.

Finding that Victoria’s Secret’s use of Pink was detrimental to the distinctive character and repute of Thomas Pink’s mark, the judge said that the American stores has a “sexy, mass market appeal” and an association between the two brands “is bound to cause a change in the economic behaviour” of Thomas Pink’s customers: “The claimant’s trade mark will be associated with a mass market offering, reducing its luxurious reputation. There is every risk that this will lead consumers not to buy products from the claimant when they otherwise would have done.”

The IP trial was also notable for being the first in the UK where both parties were represented by female lead counsel.

Thomas Pink was represented by barristers Charlotte May QC and Jaani Riordan and by law firm Bristows. Emma Himsworth QC and Philip Roberts, with law firm Mishcon de Reya, acted for Victoria’s Secret.

Victoria’s Secret can appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.

The two parties have also been involved in litigation in Canada and the United States.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article