Cornucopia Entertainment claimed to be “The world’s largest provider of exclusive access to invitation only events” and from as early as 2019 advertised the sale of tickets to various Vanity Fair and GQ events on its website and social media. As a result of these activities, the claimants alleged infringement of s10(1), s10(2), s10(3) Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA) and passing off.

S10(1) (double identity) and s10(2) (confusion) claims

Miss Recorder Amanda Michaels, sitting as a deputy judge of the IPEC, began by addressing the s10(1) and s10(2) claims.

On s10(1), the defendants argued its use of the Vanity Fair and GQ marks was merely “informational”. The judge rejected this, pointing to language such as “provider” and “is offering”, alongside quoted ticket prices, which made the use clearly transactional, despite the lack of any real ticket supply.

The defendants’ attempt to distinguish Cornucopia Entertainment’s “concierge services” from the ticketing services covered by the marks also failed. It was held that concierge services were, in substance, ticketing services, particularly as the advertisements suggested Cornucopia Entertainment could obtain tickets or make event bookings. Accordingly, the services were deemed as identical to those specified in the marks.

The final point of contention under s10(1) was whether the absence of actual ticket sales precluded damage to the marks’ origin function. The judge rejected this, confirming that infringement can arise through advertising alone, as affirmed in Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc. Relying on BMW v Deenik, Judge Michaels drew a distinction between “informative” and “misleading” use, finding Cornucopia’s use clearly fell within the latter. Its conduct, using official event photographs, referring to events as “our” annual party, reproducing invitations and adopting email addresses incorporating the claimants’ marks, suggested both independent ticket access and a special relationship with the claimants. This misleading use obscured whether any economic link existed between the parties, thereby impairing the marks’ origin function. Consequently, Cornucopia Entertainment was found to have infringed s10(1) TMA.

For the s10(2) claim the main consideration was whether there was a likelihood of confusion, which was straightforwardly found, arising from the advertising material on Cornucopia Entertainment’s website, its mock invitations on social media and its “standard response” to ticket enquiries, which implied it was responsible for allocating invitations. Taken together, this would lead consumers to assume a commercial connection between the parties. Accordingly, infringement under s10(2) was established.

S10(3) (reputation) claim

For the s10(3) claim, the judge readily found that the Vanity Fair and GQ marks had a strong reputation, therefore the focus was on whether Cornucopia Entertainment’s use caused one of the recognised forms of injury. The court held that the use was intended to enhance the prestige of the defendants’ services and to attract clients by leveraging the allure of the marks. It also enabled Cornucopia Entertainment to charge inflated prices, detached from the level of work required. In doing so, the defendant took unfair advantage of the marks’ glamour and exclusivity, effectively riding on the claimants’ coattails and establishing the requisite injury. Given the use was also without due cause, Cornucopia Entertainment was found to have infringed s10(3) TMA.

Passing off

The finding of passing off was straightforward. The judge emphasised the strong reputation and enhanced distinctiveness of the marks, concluding that Cornucopia Entertainment had traded on its goodwill. Relying on the same conduct identified under the s10(1) and s10(2) claims, the court found that the defendant had made a series of misrepresentations likely to lead consumers to believe there was a commercial connection with the claimants. These misrepresentations were “really likely” to cause damage by diverting trade and undermining the marks’ exclusive reputation. Passing off was therefore established.

Joint liability

Finally, the claimants argued that Mr Vohra, Cornucopia Entertainment’s founder, director and majority shareholder, should be held jointly liable for the infringing acts and passing off. The claimants emphasised his complete control over the business, his personal involvement in customer communications, his industry experience, and the fact that he had been repeatedly put on notice of the alleged wrongdoing through cease-and-desist letters and similar claims brought by third parties.

The judge accepted that Mr Vohra was fully aware of, and directly authorised, Cornucopia’s use of the marks. However, there was insufficient evidence that he appreciated the likelihood of confusion created by the conduct, meaning he was not jointly liable under s10(1), s10(2) or for passing off. By contrast, following at least the first cease-and-desist letter, he must have known of the marks’ reputation and that Cornucopia Entertainment was taking unfair advantage of it. He was therefore found jointly liable for infringement under s10(3).

Takeaways

This decision is a notable reminder of the broad scope of trade mark protection as liability can arise from advertising alone, even where there is little evidence of actual sales, consumer confusion or tangible damage. The critical question is whether the use is likely to affect the functions of the mark or create confusion, not whether it has done so in fact.

Perhaps most significantly, the case serves as a warning to directors and business owners that personal liability may follow where they authorise or continue infringing conduct after becoming aware of the infringing activity. As such, the decision reinforces both the strength of protection afforded to reputable marks and the potentially serious consequences of attempting to trade on their reputation and goodwill.

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Decision level: IPEC
Parties: Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and The Condé Nast Publications Limited v Cornucopia Entertainment Limited and Minesh Vohra
Date: 23 June 2026 
Citation: [2026] EWHC 1488 (IPEC)
Decision: dycip.com/2026-ewhc-1488-ipec