The IPEC found the FLOWERBX mark valid and infringed by several similar signs
Flowerbx trademark dispute proceedings have ended with the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court finding that Flowers Box London Limited infringed Flowerbx Limited’s FLOWERBX trade mark.
Miss Recorder Amanda Michaels held that the registered mark was valid and that the defendant’s use of signs including FLOWERSBOX, FLOWERS BOX and FLOWERS BOX LONDON infringed it under sections 10(2)(b) and 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
The dispute centred on UK trade mark no. 3,223,726, registered in 2017 for FLOWERBX. The defendant challenged the registration, arguing that the mark was descriptive for certain goods and services and should be declared invalid. That challenge ultimately failed.
The court found that, although FLOWERBX was pronounced as “flower box”, the combination was not descriptive of the challenged Class 31 goods or Class 35 retail services. The judge said there was insufficient evidence that consumers would immediately understand “flower box” as describing those goods or services.
The court also found that the mark had acquired enhanced distinctive character by early 2019. Evidence included the claimant’s marketing activity, media coverage and business growth. By February 2026, a significant proportion of the relevant public had come to identify the claimant’s goods and services through the FLOWERBX mark.
That finding was important to the infringement claim. The court considered FLOWERSBOX particularly close to FLOWERBX, despite the additional “S” and missing “O”. It also found significant similarity between the other signs and the registered mark.
The judge found evidence that consumers had in fact been confused between the businesses. Examples included customers intending to buy from Flowerbx but ordering from Flowers Box London, as well as mistaken contacts and reviews. The court concluded that the similarities, identical goods and services, enhanced distinctive character and evidence of confusion established a likelihood of confusion under section 10(2)(b).
The section 10(3) claim also succeeded. The court found that the defendant had taken unfair advantage of the reputation of the FLOWERBX mark. In particular, confused customers had bought from the defendant believing they were dealing with the claimant, demonstrating an actual change in economic behaviour.
The court was not persuaded, however, that the evidence was sufficient to establish a serious risk of detriment or tarnishment.
On due cause, the judge found that the defendant did not have justification for using the signs. The court noted that the defendant had been aware of confusion caused by the similarity from at least July 2019.
The court therefore concluded that the FLOWERBX mark was valid and had been infringed, dismissing the counterclaim subject to the parties’ agreement concerning the specification following the non-use dispute. The judgment stated that a further hearing could be listed if the parties could not agree the appropriate form of order.