Cross-market confusion – trade mark clashes across different sectors

April 30, 2026

Stephen Baker and Oliver Williams of our Dispute Resolution team examine recent trade mark disputes and what they mean for businesses trying to stand out in crowded markets.

Modern branding encourages crossover between industries, and consumers are used to “lifestyle” brands operating across clothing, technology, entertainment and hospitality. That makes the question of confusion between different sectors more relevant than ever.

The core legal test remains likelihood of confusion. The practical question for business owners becomes: when can two unrelated businesses peacefully share a brand name, and when does shared use trigger a trade mark dispute?

Below are three case studies that illustrate how cross‑market conflict arises and the strategic choices each business made.

Case 1: 1587 Prime Restaurant and 1587 Sneakers

NFL players Travis Kelce and Patrick Mahomes created a joint venture restaurant named “1587 Prime” and registered a trade mark in 2023. The numbers reflect their shirt numbers: 15 and 87. Their aim was to build a distinctive number‑based brand with commercial appeal.

A challenge then came from 1587 Sneakers Inc., which already had an established presence in the footwear market and an earlier registered trade mark under the same number combination. Although restaurants and shoe manufacturers operate in different sectors, the numbers are distinctively the dominant part of both brands. Adding “Prime” does little to differentiate the marks.

High profile individuals can easily move into merchandise, clothing or accessories, and this potential expansion increases the risk of confusion. If Kelce and Mahomes launched merchandise (which regularly includes apparel), they could move directly into the market territory occupied by 1587 Sneakers.

The case is being heard in the US, but the principles involved are very alike in UK law. Both systems ask whether an average consumer would assume that the businesses are connected or endorsed by one another. It remains unclear how the court will decide. Perhaps Kelce and Mahomes could even rebrand as ‘8715’ and maintain their original intention of combining their numbers whilst mitigating the possibility of infringement. It’s still all to play for.

For UK businesses, the takeaway is clear. Even if two companies appear far apart, distinctive shared elements can draw them into dispute, especially when reputational growth and brand extension is likely.

Case 2: Tesla Cars and Tesla Pizza

In 2020, Mr Amanj Ali registered “Tesla Chicken and Pizza” in class 43 for restaurant services. His registration pre‑dated Tesla Inc.’s later attempt to register a mark in the same class, prompting him to oppose the car manufacturer’s application to protect his business.

Although both parties referenced inventor Nikola Tesla, Tesla Inc. already held UK trade mark registrations in various classes dating back to 2013. On this basis, Tesla Inc. applied to invalidate Mr Ali’s trade mark.

The Intellectual Property Office ruled that the Tesla brand was so well known that Mr Ali’s mark risked taking unfair advantage of its reputation.

As part of the case, Tesla Inc. tried to argue goodwill in the restaurant industry based on social media posts demonstrating it might enter the hospitality market. The hearing officer rejected this submission and made an important observation that UK law does not accept “anticipatory goodwill”. A business cannot use another party’s future intentions as evidence of existing rights or reputation.

The case demonstrates how difficult it is for a small business to maintain a contested mark when faced with a globally dominant brand. It also highlights a common pitfall: choosing a brand name in a different trade mark class does not guarantee that it is safe from challenge.

Case 3: easyJet and the band Easy Life

In 2020, British indie band Easy Life promoted their ‘Life’s a Beach’ tour, which included a poster with a commercial airline plane, styled similarly to an easyJet aircraft, with the words ‘Easy Life’ on it. This opened the door for EasyGroup, which owns easyJet among a suite of ‘easy’ companies, to accuse Easy Life of taking unfair advantage of its trade marks and reputation in its advertising.

easyGroup are known for aggressively enforcing their controversial trade mark for the word ‘easy’, and although the plane on the album cover prompted the case against Easy Life, easyGroup also claimed the band’s name risked damaging its reputation as a whole.

Rather than fight the battle like Mr Ali did against Tesla, Easy Life simply rebranded themselves as Hard Life. The move turned a legal challenge into a marketing opportunity while avoiding the substantial cost of defending the claim. Their response shows that rebranding can be a commercially sensible option, especially for businesses without the resources or appetite for litigation.

Key lessons for UK businesses
  1. Do your due diligence. A name available in one class may still infringe another party’s rights in a different class. Thorough searches and early advice can save money and avoid rebranding later.
  2. Reputation changes the landscape. Major brands can successfully argue that a smaller business benefits unfairly from their reputation even when the goods or services differ. The stronger the brand, the wider the scope of protection.
  3. Coexistence is possible but unpredictable. Some identical marks exist peacefully in different sectors, such as ‘Delta’ and ‘Polo’. But these examples cannot be relied on. Each dispute turns on its unique likelihood of confusion, reputation clashes, and commercial context.
  4. Strategy matters. The three businesses above took different approaches: litigate, defend, or rebrand. Understanding your risk profile, resources and long‑term ambitions is essential when deciding how to respond to a trade mark threat.
How we can help

Early advice can reduce risk and avoid costly disputes. If a conflict does arise, acting quickly helps protect your position and ensures you understand the strategic options available.

Our solicitors specialise in identifying intellectual property risks and providing practical, commercial advice.

For more information or guidance on these issues, please contact us to speak to a member of our Dispute Resolution team.

Stephen Baker
Partner, Head of Dispute Resolution
<script>
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () {
  const deptEl = document.getElementById('acf-author-department');
  const department = deptEl?.dataset?.department;

  if (typeof gtag === 'function' && department) {
    gtag('set', { author_department: department });
  }
});


  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  const dept = document.getElementById("author-department")?.textContent?.trim();
  if (dept) {
    window.dataLayer.push({
      event: "authorDataReady",
      author_department: dept
    });
  }

</script>
View profileContact Us
Oliver Williams
View profileContact Us

This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.

Latest Legal Insights