B&Q v. Wren: UK High Court rejects AI-assisted image search in trademark dispute

Judge rules that proposed £100,000 disclosure exercise would be disproportionate, despite advances in AI technology.

The UK High Court has refused Wren Kitchens’ request to use an artificial intelligence (AI) tool to search for additional image-based evidence in its ongoing trademark dispute with rival retailer B&Q, ruling that the proposed exercise would be disproportionate to its likely evidential value.

In B&Q Limited v. Wren Kitchens Limited [2026] EWHC 2552 (BP), handed down on October 8, Deputy High Court Judge David Stone rejected the proposed image search because of its estimated £100,000 cost and the apparent unlikelihood of identifying relevant additional material.

The decision does not prohibit AI-assisted evidence gathering in trademark litigation. Instead, it illustrates how courts may assess the cost and likely value of technology-assisted disclosure when deciding whether to expand an existing search exercise.

Why Wren wanted to use AI

The dispute concerns competing allegations of trademark infringement arising from comparative kitchen-price advertising.

B&Q brought proceedings against Wren in March 2022, alleging infringement under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994. The challenged advertisements included statements that “Wren costs less than B&Q” and that Wren’s kitchens cost between 3% and 35% less than B&Q’s. B&Q also alleges that the advertisements contravened the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008. Wren denies infringement, maintaining that its price comparisons were accurate.

Wren has also brought counterclaims concerning B&Q’s use of comparison tables from the Kitchen Compare website, operated by Insight Retail Group Limited. Wren disputes the website’s independence and alleges that B&Q used favorable comparisons when promoting its own kitchens.

The latest application concerned the extent of B&Q’s disclosure of documents relating to these allegations. Wren sought to expand the searches already conducted, including by introducing an AI-assisted image search.

Earlier searches had relied on text-based methods across documents from 30 B&Q stores. Wren argued that these methods could miss relevant material where its trademarks appeared in images rather than searchable text.

The proposed search would cover the 30 stores over a four-week period in March 2021. Wren identified a proprietary AI tool, launched in January 2025, capable of analyzing content and identifying relevant images.

The estimated cost had fallen from £400,000, which had previously been considered by the court, to approximately £100,000 following improvements in technology since 2023.

Wren argued that the search had become more important because B&Q had characterized its use of Wren’s marks as “negligible and/or insignificant.” It also pointed to previously disclosed documents containing images of Wren’s marks as evidence that further relevant material might exist.

Court finds the additional search disproportionate

Judge Stone accepted B&Q’s arguments against the proposed exercise.

B&Q submitted that it had already undertaken text searches and a form of image search. It also argued that the proposed March 2021 search period predated the pleaded issues by approximately 12 months, as the existing searches had focused on periods in early 2022 and early 2023 associated with Wren’s test purchases.

In his judgment, Judge Stone concluded that the additional £100,000 expenditure would be disproportionate given the apparent unlikelihood of identifying relevant material. Although the revised estimate was substantially lower than the £400,000 previously considered, the judge emphasized that it remained a significant sum in the context of the litigation.

He was not satisfied that the image search was necessary for the just disposal of the proceedings. Even if it were necessary, he concluded that it would not be reasonable or proportionate.

The decision was made against a backdrop of substantial existing disclosure costs. The parties’ disclosure budgets approached £1.4 million. B&Q had processed more than 600,000 documents, of which 27,541 were reviewed and 1,364 ultimately disclosed to Wren. B&Q’s disclosure costs had already exceeded £600,000.

Limited additional disclosure allowed

The image-search request formed part of a wider application by Wren to expand electronic disclosure under paragraph 18 of Practice Direction 57AD.

The provision allows the court to vary an existing extended-disclosure order where the proposed change is necessary for the just disposal of proceedings and is reasonable and proportionate.

Wren sought broader searches, additional custodians, wider date ranges, and further search terms relating to B&Q’s alleged promotional activities and its relationship with the Kitchen Compare website.

The court rejected most of these requests, finding that the existing searches were sufficiently broad or that the proposed additional work was unlikely to uncover relevant material.

However, Wren secured limited additional disclosure. Judge Stone ordered that Gemma Reilly, a B&Q employee who had been asked to coordinate activities relating to the Kitchen Compare website, be added as a custodian for relevant searches. He also extended the relevant head-office search period to December 31, 2018.

The court additionally allowed further disclosure concerning information available to consumers that could verify certain store-price and in-store website claims. The parties were directed to agree the parameters of that search, with the judge able to determine any outstanding disagreement without a further hearing.

Wren’s application therefore succeeded only in relation to issues 11A, 12A, and 13A, through the additional custodian and extended search period, and issue 16A, concerning information available to consumers.

Implications for AI-assisted trademark disputes

The ruling offers a timely example of the practical considerations that can govern the use of AI in litigation.

Image-recognition tools may help legal teams identify trademark use in advertising, emails, promotional materials, and other documents that conventional text searches might overlook. However, the availability of a more sophisticated search method does not automatically justify its use in a particular case.

Here, the court’s decision turned on the likely relevance of the additional material, the existing disclosure already undertaken and the cost of expanding the exercise. The reduction in the estimated price from £400,000 to £100,000 was not enough to establish that the proposed search was necessary and proportionate.

For trademark litigators considering AI-assisted disclosure, the decision underscores the importance of demonstrating a clear connection between the proposed search, the issues in dispute and the likely evidential benefit.

The underlying proceedings remain ongoing, with trial scheduled for October 26, 2027. The disclosure judgment does not determine the substantive trademark infringement claims or Wren’s counterclaims.

← Back to News