Victoria Beckam’s Florist Wins Branding Battle: FLOWERBX Limited V Flowers Box London Limited

The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court's decision is a reminder of the importance of protecting brand identity and reputation. The case demonstrates that similar trading names can amount to trademark infringement where they cause consumer confusion and enable a competitor to benefit from an established brand's goodwill.

The dispute involved “FLOWERBX”, the luxury online florist founded in 2015 by former Gucci and Tom Ford executive Whitney Bromberg Hawkings. By the time the proceedings were brought, “FLOWERBX” had established itself as a premium floral brand with high-profile collaborations and clients including Louis Vuitton, Dior, Jimmy Choo and Victoria Beckham. The company had also registered the “FLOWERBX” trademark in July 2017.

The defendant, “Flowers Box London Limited”, was incorporated in 2019 and traded using the names "Flowers Box" and "Flowers Box London". Both businesses operated in the online floral sector and targeted customers seeking premium flower arrangements.

Problems emerged when customers began confusing the two businesses. Evidence before the Court included instances of customers attributing purchases from “Flowers Box London” to “FLOWERBX” and reviews intended for “FLOWERBX” being posted on the defendant's platforms. Significantly, the defendant was aware of this confusion from at least July 2019 but continued to trade under its chosen name.

“FLOWERBX” commenced proceedings alleging that the use of "Flowers Box" and "Flowers Box London" infringed its registered trademark and enabled the defendant to benefit unfairly from the reputation and goodwill associated with the “FLOWERBX” brand.

The Court found in favour of “FLOWERBX”, stating that the use of "Flowers Box" and "Flowers Box London" infringed the registered “FLOWERBX” trademark, for the following reasons:

• “FLOWERBX” had an established reputation and significant brand recognition, as evidenced by its collaboration with luxury brands and celebrities, before “Flower Box London” was incorporated.
• The defendant gained an unfair advantage from the claimant’s reputation. Even if the defendant did not intend this the objective effect of continuing to trade under the name after becoming aware of customer confusion was sufficient.
• The figurative marks of the competing brands and the overlap of the goods sold were sufficiently similar to create client confusion.

It is important to note that the fact the defendant continued to trade despite knowing about the confusion added weight to the claimant’s argument.

This factor acts as a warning for traders: just because a trader has not yet received a cease-and-desist letter or other pre-action correspondence, the trader should nonetheless be very careful about proceeding with trading under a brand where the trader knows or suspects there is confusion with another trademarked brand.

The judgement also provides a valuable reminder that a strong brand reputation, particularly one built through high-profile partnerships and customer recognition, can be a powerful asset in trademark disputes. Businesses should ensure that proposed trading names and branding are carefully assessed before launch, as even unintentional overlap with an established brand may expose them to infringement claims where confusion and unfair advantage arise.

If you would like any further information or advice on the information mentioned within this, please contact a member of our Commercial Team.

*This information is for guidance purposes only and does not constitute, nor should be regarded as, a substitute for taking legal advice that is tailored to your circumstances.