Iconix v Dream Pairs: lessons from the Umbro trademark ruling

On 24 June 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered a unanimous judgment in Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc ([2025] UKSC 25). This case, involving the iconic Umbro double-diamond mark and a stylised DP logo on trainers, prompts us to ask: have we really gained new ground, or simply reaffirmed existing EU-aligned law?

Background

The battleground between the two parties was over the alleged similarities between these two well recognised registered trademarks. Iconix, owner of the well-known Umbro rights, sued Dream Pairs over use of a DP logo on footwear sold via Amazon and eBay since 2018. At first instance, the High Court dismissed the claim entirely, finding only a “very faint” similarity and no confusion either at sale or in post-sale contexts. On appeal, the Court of Appeal disagreed, finding a “moderately high” similarity, especially when the DP logo was viewed on footwear from an angle, common in real-world use, and concluding there was likely post-sale confusion.

Dream Pairs took the case to the Supreme Court, challenging both the principles upon which the Court of Appeal found that it was able to intervene to make its own factual assessment, and the Court of Appeal’s factual findings themselves.

The UKSC ultimately restored the High Court’s no-infringement finding on the ground that the Court of Appeal had impermissibly substituted its own view in a multifactorial factual assessment. However, despite the fact that the eventual outcome resulting in Team Umbro losing their claim (and thus leaving Dream pairs free to continue using its mark in the same footwear marketplace), the decision has been seen by some as significant because of the rejection of the arguments run by Dream Pairs that tried to limit the application of the principles of post-sale confusion.

Legal clarifications

Two of the UKSC’s statements are particularly noteworthy:

Similarity and post-sale context

Dream Pairs argued that similarity must be assessed via intrinsic, side-by-side comparison unless otherwise wholly dissimilar. The Court disagreed, stating that “realistic and representative post-sale circumstances” (for instance, the viewing angle a user would see on a football field) may inform similarity assessments, but must be plausible and non-speculative.

Post-sale confusion as standalone infringement

Crucially, the Court affirmed that trademark use doesn’t end at the till: post-sale confusion that undermines the mark’s badge-of-origin function is actionable, even absent confusion at purchase. It is not necessary to prove that there is damage at the point of sale or in a transactional context – it can suffice in a trademark infringement context to demonstrate post-sale confusion.

These confirm longstanding CJEU jurisprudence (e.g. Anheuser-Busch, Equivalenza, Ruiz-Picasso), aligning UK case law firmly with its European roots.

What’s new?

At first glance, the ruling feels like déjà vu, reinforcing the position that UK law remains tethered to EU principles. Yet the judgment does add clarity:

• It confirms that courts should not ignore how marks appear in situ; viewing perspective and product usage are not peripheral considerations, but integral to similarity assessments.
• It clarifies that confusion occurring after the point of sale is not legally irrelevant; in fact, it may provide sufficient basis for infringement provided it affects the mark’s origin function.
• It reinforces that appellate courts must show clear legal or principled error before overturning trial-level judgments, cautioning against substituting fact-finding with second-guessing.

Lessons for brand owners and challengers

From a brand-protection perspective, the significance is two-fold:

• For rights-holders:
  This judgement is a strong reminder to compile robust “real world” evidence: photos, consumer surveys, and marketing samples, which show how alleged infringing marks are worn and viewed in context. Anecdotal side-by-side comparisons fall short.
• For challengers:
  Logo vetting must now extend beyond registration files. Consider the logo’s appearance when worn, displayed, and viewed at non-standard angles. A mark that looks innocuous in flat form may spell risk in situ.

But does it change anything?

It feels significant, and the extensive reporting on this adds to the excitement. However, in reality the Supreme Court didn’t say anything fundamentally different to the existing case law. It did reinforce ruthless consistency with EU precedents though, and clarity is welcome in my view. For litigators, the message is clear: bring your context-rich evidence, but don’t bank on surprise legal doctrines.

As for the High Court’s factual conclusions, the judgment underlines how hard it is to displace a well-reasoned trial decision on appeal. This rings especially true in visually-driven disputes, where perspectives on designs may reasonably differ.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Umbro v Dream Pairs doesn’t break new legal ground, but it highlights the terrain brands must now navigate, whether you are in fashion or any other goods and services sector.