Reading time: five minutes

The UK Supreme Court has recently made a statement that’ll greatly impact brand owners and is likely to have a ripple effect through the fashion, footwear and sports industries.

In the case Iconix v Dream Pairs (Umbro), the court confirmed for the first time ever that ‘post-sale confusion’, a phrase describing the confusion that happens after a product has been bought, can amount to trademark infringement.

That means it’s no longer just about what the shopper thinks at the till. What happens after the purchase is also important, when the product is out in the world being used, worn or seen by others.

Let’s break down what that means, why the Supreme Court said it and how it might change the way brands think about their logos and designs.

What’s ‘post-sale confusion’?

Traditionally, trademark cases have focused on confusion at the point of sale – would an average consumer, at the time of buying, mistake one brand for another?

Post-sale confusion stretches that idea further. It’s about what happens after the purchase, for example, when someone sees a pair of trainers on the street and assumes they’re made by a better-known brand.

That kind of confusion doesn’t affect the original buyer, but it might still damage the brand’s reputation, dilute distinctiveness or even help an imitator gain traction unfairly.

Until now, UK courts hadn’t clearly confirmed whether post-sale confusion on its own could count as infringement. That’s what makes this case such a milestone.

The background – Umbro v Dream Pairs

The story starts with Iconix, owner of the iconic Umbro brand, and its famous double diamond logo. Umbro has used that logo on its football boots since way back in 1987.

Enter Dream Pairs, a footwear brand that began selling shoes in the UK in 2018. Its logo, another angular geometric design, bore, in Umbro’s eyes, a little too much resemblance to the double diamond.

Iconix sued, claiming infringement under sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the Trademarks Act 1994, arguing that there was a likelihood of confusion – especially when the logo was viewed at an angle on a boot in real-world (post-sale) use.

Round one – no infringement

In the High Court, Justice Miles agreed that Umbro’s argument about post-sale confusion was a valid consideration, but he wasn’t convinced by the facts.

He decided that the similarity between the Umbro logo and Dream Pairs’ mark was only “very faint” and wasn’t enough to mislead consumers, even in post-sale situations.

So, the judgment was that there was no infringement and Dream Pairs walked away with the win.

Round two – the Court of Appeal steps in

Umbro appealed, which is where things got interesting. The Court of Appeal disagreed with how the High Court had looked at the evidence. It said the judge had gone wrong by comparing the logos side by side, something consumers rarely do, instead of thinking about how the logo would appear on shoes being worn and seen from various angles.

From that perspective, the Court of Appeal thought the logos looked more alike than the first judge had allowed. It found a “moderately high” level of similarity and concluded that post-sale confusion was likely.

Result – the decision flipped. Suddenly, Dream Pairs was found to have infringed.

Round three: dream pairs takes it to the top

Dream Pairs wasn’t done yet, it appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that:

• the Court of Appeal shouldn’t have substituted its own view for that of the trial judge, because the original decision involved a multifactorial assessment – this is the nuanced balancing act appellate courts should rarely interfere with; and
• the law itself didn’t allow for post-sale confusion to be treated as an independent basis for infringement.

Essentially, Dream Pairs said that the Court of Appeal had overstepped and the law didn’t have such reach anyway.

What the Supreme Court said

The Supreme Court’s judgment was nuanced, but powerful. Initially, it agreed that the Court of Appeal had gone too far – the High Court judge had properly considered post-sale confusion and he simply didn’t find it compelling on the facts. That kind of evaluative judgment wasn’t irrational, so the Court of Appeal shouldn’t have rewritten it.

However, crucially, the Supreme Court rejected Dream Pairs’ arguments on trademark law itself.

It held that:

• post-sale circumstances can indeed be considered when assessing both similarity and likelihood of confusion;
• that those circumstances must be “realistic and representative,” courts won’t entertain far-fetched scenarios; and
• post-sale confusion alone (even without confusion at the point of sale) can be enough to prove infringement.

So, while Dream Pairs won the appeal on the procedural issue (because the Court of Appeal shouldn’t have substituted its view), it lost on the substantive law. The Supreme Court made it crystal clear that post-sale confusion is now a legitimate and independent route to an infringement claim.

Why it matters

This is a major moment for UK trademark law. Brand owners now have a clearer, broader basis to challenge lookalike products, even if buyers aren’t confused when they buy them. If it’s possible for a person to mistake your product for a more well known one after the sale, that can now be enough.

For designers and marketers, this is a warning shot. It’s not just about what a logo looks like in a catalogue or online. You must think about how it appears in use, on a moving body, at different angles and generally in in different contexts.

This is especially relevant in industries like fashion, footwear and accessories, where a logo is constantly shifting in how it’s seen. A shape that looks distinct in 2D might blur dangerously close to another when printed, stitched or curved around a shoe.