Mike Ashley locked in legal row with TK Maxx over Brand Max name

12701
Mike Ashley locked in name row with TK Maxx
TK Max's owner, TJX UK, has complained about a trading name used by a branch of Mike Ashley's Frasers Group retail empire.
// Mike Ashley is in a legal row with TK Maxx over the use of the Brand Max name
// TX Maxx says it has trademark protection and that Brand Max could cause confusion
// Mike Ashley’s lawyers disagree

Retail tycoon Mike Ashley is embroiled in a court fight with fashion retailer TK Maxx over the use of the Brand Max brand name.

The fashion chain’s owner, TJX UK, has complained about a trading name used by a branch of Ashley’s Frasers Group retail empire.

TK Maxx bosses have sued a firm in the group, Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd, and complained about a “designer outlet business” called Brand Max, which trades from 18 stores across the UK and Ireland and sells a range of clothing and homeware at discounts of up to 70 per cent.


READ MORE: 


Lawyers representing TJX UK have told a judge that the TX Maxx brand has trademark protection and they say Brand Max could cause confusion.

Bosses at Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd disagreed.

They argue that TJX UK cannot establish “infringement” or “passing off” and say its claim should be dismissed.

Justice Miles is considering rival arguments at a virtual High Court hearing.

Simon Malynicz QC, for TJX UK, told the judge – in a written case outline on Tuesday – how TK Maxx had launched in the UK in 1994 and now operated more than 340 stores here.

He said TK Maxx was known for the sale of well-known third party brands at a discount.

“The defendant (a new branch of the Sports Direct empire) launched a new business in April 2017 looking to compete with TK Maxx head-to-head in the same niche,” he said.

“However, rather than distinguishing itself from TK Maxx, and adopting a name that would stand apart and catch attention in a new way, the defendant decided not only that the new business should mimic the look and feel of TK Maxx stores but that it should trade under the (Brand Max) brand.”

Malynicz added: “The defendant’s name and livery was clearly intended to, and does, cause consumers to connect their new offering to TK Maxx in consumers’ minds in various ways.

“It could be causative of public confusion.”

He said even if there was no confusion, consumers were bound to, at least, make a link.

Iain Purvis QC, for Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd, said that at heart, the case was “simple”.

“The defendant’s signs are different to the claimants’ marks save in one respect, the use of the letters ‘max’,” he said.

“Conceptually, the defendant’s signs are completely different to the claimants’ marks.

“Visually and aurally there is only a very low degree of similarity.”

He added: “The average consumer, a high street shopper, who is used to distinguishing between different brands based on an assessment of their trading names and logos, will not be confused.

“Nor, indeed, will they form any link between the defendant’s signs and the claimant’s marks.”

with PA Wires

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter

1 COMMENT

  1. I simply can’t see the argument. There are several Brand Max stores in Ireland. They look totally different to a TK Maxx store and I have never heard anyone suggest that its part of TK Maxx or have any confusion over it.

    Even if you had two stores side by side, you simply could not confuse them.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here