A florist’s trade mark dispute blooms into a big win for FLOWERBX

A florist’s trade mark dispute blooms into a big win for FLOWERBX

A recent High Court ruling in Flowerbx Ltd v Flowers Box London Ltd has confirmed some important lessons for any business that has spent years building a distinctive brand.

Flowerbx is an online luxury flower delivery brand. Flowerbx took legal action against a competitor, Flowers Box London Ltd, for using names like FLOWERSBOX, FLOWERS BOX and FLOWERS BOX LONDON for identical flower products and services.

Flowers Box hit back, arguing that “FLOWERBX” should never have been registered as a trade mark in the first place, because it’s just a clever spelling of “flower box”, which is an everyday, descriptive term.

The Court disagreed. It held that while people would read and say FLOWERBX as “flower box,” the word doesn’t directly describe flowers or flower-selling services, so the mark was inherently distinctive, and years of sales, marketing and media coverage meant that the mark also had acquired distinctiveness.

The Judge found a high level of similarity between the two brands and pointed to real evidence of customers getting confused; people ordering from, or complaining to, Flowers Box when they had actually meant to deal with Flowerbx, including mixed-up online reviews.

The Court also found that Flowers Box had unfairly benefited from Flowerbx’s hard earned reputation for luxury floral design, built through high-profile collaborations and consistent brand positioning.

The case illustrates why brands should retain dated records of sales, marketing, press coverage and collaborations, including founder-focused publicity that clearly identifies the brand.

It also shows that if customers are genuinely getting confused between two similar names, that evidence carries real weight in Court, so it is helpful to document confusion as soon as it arises.

The court sided with Flowerbx, upholding its trade mark and dismissing the invalidity counterclaim.