IPEC finds LE MANS trademark infringement in watch dispute

Court finds Omologato’s use of LE MANS, LM, and LMR infringed Automobile Club de l’Ouest’s trademarks, with the judge describing the LE MANS use as a “classic case of unfair free riding”

The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) has found that watchmaker Omologato Ltd infringed trademarks owned by Automobile Club de l’Ouest (ACO), the organization behind the 24 Hours of Le Mans, through its use of the signs LE MANS, LM, and LMR.

In Automobile Club de L’Ouest (ACO) v. Omologato Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 2265 (IPEC), Deputy High Court Judge David Stone found infringement under sections 10(1), 10(2) and 10(3) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994.

The judgment was handed down on July 27, 2026. A detailed analysis published on September 17 has now highlighted the decision’s significance for famous sporting brands and ambush marketing. The dispute concerned Omologato’s watches and its use of references to the Le Mans race in product names, website URLs, social media, and other promotional material. The defendants did not attend or have representation at the liability trial.

ACO’s Le Mans trademarks

ACO relied on three trademarks. The first was the LM word mark, registered, among other things, for watches in Class 14 and for the organization of motor vehicle competitions in Class 41.

The second was a figurative mark consisting of the words LE MANS together with a representation of the Le Mans racetrack. It is registered for watches in Class 14 and, among other services, entertainment in the nature of motor racing in Class 41.

The third was a stylized 24H LE MANS mark, registered for wristwatches in Class 14. ACO alleged that Omologato’s uses of LE MANS, LM, and LMR infringed those marks. Omologato’s uses included the name of its “Le Mans ’59 Watch,” use of LE MANS in URLs and hashtags, and references such as “our Le Mans Chronograph.”

LM infringed under section 10(1)

Judge Stone found that Omologato’s use of LM on its watches infringed ACO’s LM mark under section 10(1).

The court found that LM was being used as an indication of commercial origin for Omologato’s watches, in the course of trade and without ACO’s consent. The sign and the registered mark were identical, while the watches were identical to the relevant registered goods.

The court also found that the use was liable to affect the functions of ACO’s trademark, including through confusion.

LE MANS infringed under section 10(2)

The court separately considered Omologato’s use of LE MANS against ACO’s figurative LE MANS mark and 24H LE MANS mark under section 10(2). Judge Stone found that the LE MANS mark incorporating the racetrack device had acquired distinctiveness through use and had a reputation in the UK, at least in relation to entertainment in the nature of motor racing.

The judge noted evidence that the Le Mans race had been a prominent feature of the global motor-racing calendar for more than 100 years and was popular with UK consumers. Approximately one-third of international spectators were from the UK, while the race was also available to UK audiences through television and streaming services.

The court found that the racetrack device in the registered mark served to emphasize the words LE MANS. As a result, use of LE MANS without the device did not alter the distinctive character of the registered mark.

Omologato’s use of LE MANS on watches was therefore highly similar to the registered LE MANS mark and concerned identical goods. The court found a likelihood of confusion, with the enhanced distinctiveness of the mark increasing that likelihood.

The 24H LE MANS mark was also infringed. Judge Stone found that LE MANS was its dominant and distinctive component and that the mark was highly similar visually, aurally, and conceptually to Omologato’s use of LE MANS on watches.

LMR infringed the LM mark

The court reached a different conclusion when considering LMR. Judge Stone found that LMR was similar to ACO’s LM mark because LM appears wholly within LMR and consumers generally pay greater attention to the beginning of a trademark. The goods were identical.

Context was also important. Omologato used LMR alongside references to LE MANS and other indications of the race. The court found that consumers would understand LMR in that context as referring to the “Le Mans Race.”

As a result, the court found a likelihood of confusion, with at least a significant proportion of consumers likely to think that Omologato’s LMR brand was in common ownership with, or licensed by, the owner of the LM mark.

Importantly, however, the court did not find LM or LMR sufficiently similar to ACO’s LE MANS or 24H LE MANS marks to establish section 10(2) infringement. The successful section 10(2) finding concerning LMR was specifically in relation to ACO’s LM mark.

“A classic case of unfair free riding”

The most significant aspect of the decision for brand owners may be the court’s treatment of section 10(3) and unfair advantage.

Judge Stone found that consumers would create a link between Omologato’s use of LE MANS and ACO’s reputed LE MANS mark and that Omologato would thereby obtain an advantage.

The judge described the case as a “classic case of unfair free riding.”

On the evidence, the court found that Omologato had set out to take advantage of the prestige of the Le Mans race and had used LE MANS and variants of the sign to bolster sales of its own watches.

The section 10(3) finding therefore concerned Omologato’s use of LE MANS, rather than its LM or LMR uses. The court found that ACO had established reputation for the relevant LE MANS mark, while it had made no claim to reputation for the LM or 24H LE MANS marks.

Ambush marketing argument rejected

Omologato argued that it was entitled to use LE MANS because it had sponsored teams and drivers competing in ACO’s races.

The court rejected the argument on the evidence. Judge Stone said the alleged sponsorship arrangements had been asserted but not proved, and that the court would have expected to see agreements establishing the relevant chain of permission from ACO through the sponsored teams to Omologato. No such agreements had been provided.

ACO had also produced agreements with teams showing restrictions on the use of its trademarks, particularly in relation to watches. The judgment noted that ACO has a significant sponsorship arrangement with Rolex, another watch manufacturer, and that the relevant agreements did not permit teams to use LE MANS on watches or authorize team sponsors to do so.

The court also rejected Omologato’s argument that ACO had delayed in objecting to the use.

Judge Stone found that ACO had objected “early and often” and had resorted to court proceedings after Omologato refused to change the way it named and promoted its watches.

Descriptive-use defense fails

Omologato also sought to rely on the descriptive-use defense in section 11(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

The provision can protect certain uses of a trademark for the purpose of identifying or referring to goods or services, provided that the use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. Judge Stone found that requirement was not satisfied.

The court accepted ACO’s characterization of the case as an example of ambush marketing, in which a non-sponsoring trader seeks a commercial advantage through association with a sporting event.

Given the unfair advantage obtained through the association with ACO’s marks, the court found that Omologato’s use was not in accordance with honest practices and that the section 11(2)(c) defense therefore failed.

LMR registration invalidated

The proceedings also concerned an LMR trademark personally owned by Omologato director Shami Kalra. Kalra had applied to register LMR after ACO’s representatives sent a letter before action. He argued that the registration provided a defense to the infringement claim.

The court rejected that argument. Section 10(6), which had previously provided such a defense, was repealed in 2019. ACO also sought invalidation of the LMR registration. Judge Stone found that LMR was similar to ACO’s earlier LM mark and was registered for identical or very similar goods in Class 14. He therefore ordered that the LMR registration be expunged ab initio from the UK trademark register.

Director jointly liable

The judgment also found Shami Kalra jointly liable with Omologato for the trademark infringements. The court found that Kalra was the company’s controlling mind. He designed and named the watches, wrote or approved advertising copy, responded to ACO’s pre-action correspondence, requested a license from ACO, and directed the litigation.

Judge Stone concluded that Kalra had actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying ACO’s infringement claims and was therefore jointly liable for the company’s acts of infringement.

Implications for sports brands

The decision provides a significant example of the protection that trademark law can provide around the commercial value of a major sporting event.

It does not mean that every reference to a sporting event by a non-sponsor will constitute infringement. The court’s findings turned on the particular marks, goods, uses, and commercial context before it. In this case, the reputation and enhanced distinctiveness of ACO’s LE MANS mark, Omologato’s use of LE MANS on watches, the surrounding references to the Le Mans race, and the court’s finding that Omologato sought to benefit from the prestige associated with the event were central to the successful claims.

The decision therefore illustrates the importance of considering the overall commercial context when assessing whether references to a famous sporting event are genuinely descriptive or instead constitute trademark use and an attempt to capitalize on the event’s reputation.

ACO’s trademark infringement claims mostly succeeded, and the court found Kalra’s LMR trademark invalid. The judgment leaves a useful precedent for brand owners dealing with attempts by non-sponsors to commercially associate themselves with famous sporting events.

← Back to News