Victoria’s Secret wins trademark coexistence battle against Thomas Pink in UK High Court

The English High Court has ruled that a 2015 worldwide trademark coexistence agreement does not prevent Victoria’s Secret from pursuing infringement proceedings against Thomas Pink in the United States, highlighting the importance of precise contractual drafting and the distinction between corporate ownership and consumer-facing brand identity.

The English High Court has rejected an attempt by Thomas Pink to prevent Victoria’s Secret from pursuing a US trademark infringement action over its PINK-branded clothing, ruling that the products in dispute fall outside the protection afforded by a worldwide coexistence agreement between the two businesses.

In Thomas Pink Shirtmaker LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management LLC [2026] EWHC 2817 (BP), handed down on November 5, 2026, Deputy Judge Justin Turner KC considered the interpretation of a settlement agreement signed by the parties’ predecessors on July 27, 2015.

The agreement established reciprocal restrictions on the circumstances in which the parties could assert their respective trademark rights against one another. However, the dispute centered on whether those protections prevented Victoria’s Secret from bringing infringement proceedings in the United States over clothing bearing the PINK mark.

The court concluded that they did not and refused Thomas Pink’s application for an anti-suit injunction, allowing the proceedings in the Southern District of Ohio to continue.

A decade-old agreement at the center of the dispute

In 2014, Mr Justice Birss found that Victoria’s Secret had infringed Thomas Pink’s UK and EU trademark rights through its use of PINK on retail stores and clothing. Victoria’s Secret was granted permission to appeal, but the proceedings were subsequently settled through the July 2015 agreement, which established the terms on which the businesses would coexist internationally.

The agreement contained reciprocal undertakings not to assert certain trademark rights against one another, subject to specified exceptions.

The latest proceedings centered on clause 5.5, particularly subclause 5.5.2. This provided an exception to Victoria’s Secret’s undertaking not to assert its trademark rights where PINK was used in connection with a brand or range of products associated with a brand or business other than the THOMAS PINK business.

The dispute arose after Victoria’s Secret discovered in August 2026 that Thomas Pink had a range of women’s athleisure clothing on the US market, with PINK prominently displayed on the exterior of the garments.

Victoria’s Secret subsequently brought trademark infringement proceedings in Ohio. Thomas Pink argued that the 2015 agreement prevented the US action from proceeding and sought an anti-suit injunction from the English court.

Court favors a brand-based interpretation

Thomas Pink argued that the contractual protection extended to products and businesses commercially connected with its wider corporate group, including products manufactured or sold under license. It also argued that the disputed garments should benefit from the agreement because their internal labels carried the THOMAS PINK name.

Victoria’s Secret maintained that the agreement concerned the use of trademarks and that the relevant question was whether consumers associated the products with the THOMAS PINK brand in a trademark sense. Deputy Judge Turner KC preferred Victoria’s Secret’s interpretation. The judge emphasized that the agreement defined the THOMAS PINK business by reference to the brand name under which the business operated, rather than the identity or ownership of the company selling the products.

He concluded that the wording of clause 5.5.2 had to be interpreted in the context of a trademark dispute. Accordingly, the relevant association was an association in a trademark sense, rather than simply a commercial or corporate connection. The judge also considered the parties’ respective commercial positions when the agreement was signed in 2015.

Victoria’s Secret already had a substantial presence in the US market, where it had been using PINK for clothing since 2003. By contrast, there was no evidence that Thomas Pink or its associates or licensees had traded under the PINK mark in the United States at the time.

The judge considered that allowing Thomas Pink and its associated businesses to sell clothing under PINK in the United States would have represented a significant concession by Victoria’s Secret. Had that been the parties’ intention, he reasoned, it would have been clearly stated in the agreement.

The court also rejected Thomas Pink’s alternative argument that the internal THOMAS PINK labels on the garments brought them within the contractual protection.

The judge noted that the disputed products were externally branded with PINK and that the internal labels would not be visible when the garments were worn. He also considered it inconsistent with the earlier infringement judgment, which had recognized that externally displayed PINK branding could constitute trademark infringement notwithstanding the presence of Victoria’s Secret branding elsewhere on the garments.

The court therefore concluded that the products were associated with the PINK brand and that the contractual exception applied.

Implications for international trademark agreements

The ruling provides an important reminder that international trademark coexistence agreements must be drafted with careful consideration of brand identity, commercial relationships and the scope of permitted use. In particular, the judgment illustrates that protections negotiated by corporate groups cannot necessarily be interpreted as extending to every product, affiliate or licensed business connected with a particular company.

The distinction between a corporate relationship and the trademark identity under which products are presented to consumers was central to the court’s reasoning. For businesses negotiating worldwide coexistence arrangements, the decision highlights the importance of expressly defining how protections apply to affiliates, licensees, related businesses, and future product ranges.

It also demonstrates the importance of considering existing territorial trading positions when negotiating international settlements. The parties’ respective use of PINK in the United States at the time of the 2015 agreement was a significant factor in the court’s interpretation. The court ultimately refused Thomas Pink’s application for an anti-suit injunction, finding that the agreement did not prevent Victoria’s Secret from asserting its trademark rights in the Ohio proceedings in respect of the products in dispute.

The ruling does not determine the merits of the underlying US infringement claim, which will now be able to proceed. The judge also invited further submissions from the parties on the precise wording of the declaration to be granted.

The full judgment is available from The National Archives.

← Back to News