UK: Best Buy Case Provides Warning on Trade Mark Threats

Last Updated: 26 August 2010
Article by Isabel Davies and Scott Fairbairn

In the recent High Court case of Best Buy v Worldwide Sales Corporation, Mr Justice Floyd has given a judgment that gives a literal and strict approach to one of the commonly relied upon exceptions to the statutory threats provisions in the Trade Mark Act 1994, opining that the exception relating to 'the supply of services under the mark' should not extend to the 'offer of supply' of services, and confirming that letters before action and related undertakings should not go further than the exceptions, otherwise the communication could constitute an actionable threat. Mr Justice Floyd also considered the circumstances in which without prejudice privilege may apply to threatening letters, concluding that even the opening shot in negotiations can, depending on the circumstances, amount to bona fide without prejudice correspondence and be privileged accordingly.

To view the article in full, please see below:

Full Article

Threats Provisions in the UK

Unjustified threats provisions are unique to the United Kingdom and specify that, in relation to certain intellectual property rights, any person aggrieved may, subject to certain statutory exceptions, bring an action against the maker of a threat of enforcement proceedings. This creates inconsistencies across intellectual property rights as threats provisions apply to trade marks, patents and designs but the detailed provisions differ, and do not apply to copyright or the common law tort of passing off. These provisions also provide a trap for the unwary, particularly for practitioners from other jurisdictions.

Threats Provisions under the Trade Marks Act 1994

Section 21(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA) provides that where a person threatens another with proceedings for infringement of a registered trade mark other than:

(a) the application of the mark to goods or their packaging;

(b) the importation of goods to which, or to the packaging of which, the mark has been applied; or

(c) the supply of services under the mark,

any person aggrieved may bring proceedings for relief under this section.

Claimants can seek a declaration from the trade mark owner that the threats lacked justification, damages and an injunction to prevent further threats.

The Best Buy case clarifies the scope of these statutory exceptions and provides a warning to those who may have assumed that if one refers to the supply of services in a letter before action and undertakings, one can also ask the infringer to stop related infringements, such as advertising and marketing in relation to the supply of services, without falling foul of the threats provisions.

In addition the Best Buy case considered the application of the without prejudice rule or privilege which generally prevents statements made in a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute from being put before the court as evidence.


The claimants, Best Buy Inc and its UK subsidiary (Best Buy) planned to open a series of consumer electronics shops in the UK and in other EU countries under the Best Buy name which they had used extensively in the US. Worldwide Sales Corp Espana SL (WSC), owned a number of figurative CTMs and national registered trade marks including the words "Best Buy".

A company related to Best Buy had filed for a CTM for "Best Buy" which WSC had opposed on the basis of their earlier marks. In 2008 Best Buy's lawyers wrote to WSC setting out that there could be scope for a co-existence agreement and that they would be prepared to agree to an extension to a cooling-off period in place at the time to allow further time within which to discuss a possible co-existence agreement.

Clifford Chance S.L. Abogados replied on behalf of WSC with a letter that triggered the threats claim. The letter said, amongst other things, that the use of the "Best Buy" trade mark "in Europe and in particular in Spain, as well as in advertising and in the media, as at present, represents a conflict with the intellectual property rights duly registered by my client in Spain and Europe which would entitle it to take the appropriate legal action to defend its interests".

The letter went on to say:

"If, taking into account the above, [Best Buy] were to remain interested in using the BEST BUY trademark in Europe my client would be prepared, taking up the proposal made by your client in your facts of 28 August 2008, to reach a negotiated solution which would enable your client to do so while at the same time compensating my client for the cessation of its activity that this would undoubtedly entail.

Until a negotiated solution is reached, we hereby request that your client refrain from using the BEST BUY trademark in Europe, issuing any press articles or making any announcements of its imminent activities in Europe (news that has already caused confusion and concern among my client's customers).

In order to ensure that my client is able to protect its rights in a proper fashion, we hereby request that, within a term of fifteen (15) calendar days as of the date of receipt of this letter, you reply to us in writing confirming (i) [Best Buy's] willingness to start a negotiation process with my client in order to attempt to find a negotiated solution to the conflict; or (ii) your client's undertaking to not use the BEST BUY trademark in Europe, or issue any news in the press or make any announcements of any imminent activity in Europe, or indeed use such trademark in any other way."

The issues in the case were whether an actionable threat had been made in the letter, whether such a threat related to UK infringement proceedings, whether the communication fell within a statutory exception and whether it attracted without prejudice privilege.


Mr Justice Floyd held that a threat had been made, but as the letter was part of a negotiating process, it fell within the protection of the without prejudice rule.

Threatening Behaviour

In considering whether the letter was a threat, the meaning and the impact of the letters has to be decided in accordance with how they would be understood by an ordinary reader. Floyd J quoted the Unilever v P&G case:

"In summary, the term 'threat' covers any information that would convey to a reasonable man that some person has trade mark rights and intends to enforce them against another".

Floyd J considered that the recipient would understand from the CC letter in the clearest terms that proceedings for infringement of a trade mark were being threatened.

The Statutory Exceptions

Floyd J also reasoned that the court has to consider the impact of the letter on the recipient and that one must ask whether the recipient would understand the threat to be limited to proceedings in respect of excluded acts. Floyd J was careful to make a distinction between the supply of services (statutory exception) and the offer of the supply of services (not an exception):

"Section 21 excludes certain types of infringement proceedings from its scope ("excluded acts"). The excluded acts correspond to some but not all of the acts which are deemed, by section 10(4) to be use of a sign for the purposes of infringement. Thus, for example, exporting goods under the sign is deemed to be use of the sign for the purposes of infringement, but is not an excluded act. Similarly, and more relevantly, offering or supplying services under the sign is deemed use for infringement purposes, but only supply of services (and not offering to supply) is an excluded act."

He went on to state that any threat must be clearly limited to proceedings in respect of excluded acts (such as the supply of services). The letter in question sought undertakings in respect of any use of the mark, which must include offering to supply services. It was explicit in seeking to restrain other acts beyond the supply of services and so could not benefit from the defence based on excluded acts.


Floyd J dismissed arguments that the threat of proceedings did not relate to the UK courts, concluding that the reasonable recipient would consider that WSC had a range of options as to the forum in which they could bring the proceedings and that they were not limiting themselves to bringing proceedings in Spain. The recipient would recognise that, if a major launch were to take place in the UK, then the UK would be a likely choice for proceedings.

Without Prejudice

The threats action was unsuccessful because the CC letter was covered by without prejudice privilege. Floyd J rejected arguments that the 'real' purpose of the letter was a letter before action, because in context, the letter was setting out a negotiating position. Floyd J came to this conclusion as both the CC letter and the letter that preceded it contained genuine offers to negotiate. The offers to negotiate were made in the context of proceedings which were on foot: subsisting CTM opposition proceedings were underway in which WSC were trying to invalidate Best Buy's CTM, and Best Buy were seeking to revoke one of WSC's trade marks as well. The offer was made during a cooling-off period intended for the parties to negotiate a consensual solution. In context, and as the letter itself requested a response confirming a willingness to start a negotiation process, the letter fell within the protection of the without prejudice rule.


The decision is significant because it is the first judgment in which a judge has gone on record to expressly state that, while the 'supply of services' clearly falls within a statutory exception, the 'offer to supply services' does not. It also confirms that any threat must be clearly limited to proceedings in respect of excluded acts (such as the supply of services) and that where a letter seeks undertakings in respect of any use of a mark they must not go wider than the exception - they must not seek to restrain other acts.

This is perhaps a somewhat impractical approach. Trade mark owners and their professional advisers must be even more careful to limit both their letters and their undertakings to acts that fall expressly and exclusively within the narrow ambit of the statutory exceptions.

As for the availability of without prejudice as a 'defence' to a threats claim, Floyd J did state that "It is clear from the authorities that even the opening shot in negotiations can, depending on the circumstances, amount to bona fide without prejudice correspondence and be privileged accordingly". However this should not be regarded as a 'cure-all' defence - it remains to be seen and seems unlikely that a letter before action could seek to rely on such a defence unless a dispute has already been identified between the parties and the communication is part of negotiations or a genuine attempt to settle.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 25/08/2010.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.