Flowerbx blooms in trade mark victory against Flowers Box
14th October 2026
In 2015 Flowerbx Limited (“Flowerbx”) began trading under the brand Flowerbx having obtained a UK Trade Mark Registration for FLOWERBX covering amongst other items “fresh flower arrangements” and the “delivery of flowers” in 2014.
Flowerbx fast became the go to florist for high end clients and celebrities in the UK and reached a turnover of £4.3 million by 2026.
In 2017, Flowers Box London Limited (the Defendant) started trading under the trade marks FLOWERS BOX LONDON, FLOWERS BOX and FLOWER BOX offering the same or similar goods and services to those of Flowersbx. Flowersbx brought trade mark infringement proceedings against the Defendant on the basis that the use of their trade mark was likely to lead to a likelihood of confusion amongst members of the public and that the Defendant’s use of the trade marks in question took an unfair advantage of Flowerbx’s trade mark registration.
The Defendant counterclaimed the Flowerbx’s trade mark registration was invalid due to the mark of the registration describing the characteristics of the goods and services protected and, as such, it should be removed from the register.
The case was brought before the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC). In deciding the invalidity claim first, the Court found that the Defendant failed to specify which characteristic of the goods / services “flower box” described. The Defendant also failed to file sufficient evidence that “flower box” would be understood by members of the public to refer to flower arrangements in a box. The Court decided that the description primarily referred to the box itself and not the flowers arranged inside it. Therefore, “flower box” was not descriptive of any of the challenged goods / services and so the registration was maintained.
In respect of the infringement, the court found a high likelihood of confusion between the trade marks in question. The Court emphasised that “given that communication likely occurs via email and perhaps phone, alongside the use of internet search engines, the visual and conceptual similarity is paramount”. Flowerbx also submitted large amounts of evidence of confusion relating to the marks in question.
The Court also found that there was a change in the economic behaviour of consumers as a result of the reputation in the Flowerbx trade mark. As such, the Court found that infringement also occurred on this ground too. The Judge stated “I am satisfied that the defendant took unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the Mark, as it gave the defendant an advantage which was unfair because it enabled the defendant to profit from the reputation achieved by the claimant’s hard work and marketing efforts. In my judgment, that suffices to show that a transfer of image has actually occurred and that the defendant took unfair advantage of the reputation of the Mark. That was the objective effect of its use of the Signs”.
Whilst the trade mark FLOWERBX could arguably be of low distinctive character for the goods and services in question, the evidence provided by Flowerbx here was key. It showed that Flowerbx had a very strong following and that consumers were clearly confused into believing that the goods/services of the Defendant were those of Flowerbx. Therefore, the Flowerbx mark must be able to function as a trade mark.
