Notting Hill IP bag left empty as trade mark lapses after company dissolution
- Rosie Burbidge
- Aug 3
- 3 min read
The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) has delivered its judgment in a publicised dispute over rights in the “Notting Hill Shopping Bag”. The case, Courtenay-Smith and Ors v The Notting Hill Shopping Bag Company Limited and Ors [2025] EWHC 1793 (IPEC), is a cautionary tale about the consequences of company dissolution on intellectual property rights, and the evidential burden in claims of copyright infringement and passing off.
Background to the Notting Hill bag
The dispute centred on the use of the logo and brand name “THE NOTTING HILL SHOPPING BAG” on tote bags sold on Portobello Road. The First Claimant, Natasha Courtenay-Smith (NC-S), had developed the logo in 2008/2009 and incorporated a company, The Notting Hill Shopping Bag Company Limited, to commercialise it. This company was voluntarily dissolved in April 2018. Upon dissolution, the company's assets, including a UK trade mark registered in 2013, became bona vacantia (i.e. property of the Crown).
In 2023, NC-S became aware of similar bags being sold by the Defendants under the name “THE NOTTING HILL SHOPPER BAG”. This prompted her to apply to restore the company to the register and attempt to reclaim the trade mark.
The claims
The Claimants (NC-S and Notting Hill Bag Company Limited, or NHBCL) brought claims for:
Infringement of the (renewed) UK trade mark;
Passing off; and
Copyright infringement in the logo.
They argued that the goodwill in the brand had been transferred to NHBCL and that the Defendants had deliberately copied their branding and designs.
The Defendants denied infringement and argued that the trade mark was not validly renewed, that it should be revoked for non-use, and that they had not copied any copyright work (and consequently there could be no infringement). They further argued that any goodwill remained with the dissolved company and was not effectively transferred to NHBCL.
The court’s findings
The court, led by Master Kaye, found in favour of the Defendants.
Key findings included:
The Trade mark renewal was invalid: When the original company was dissolved in 2018, the trade mark vested in the Crown. NHBCL did not obtain a vesting order or purchase the rights from the Crown. A purported renewal by NHBCL in March 2023 was therefore a legal nullity.
“The Trade Mark was invalidly renewed and registered on 22 March 2023. It expired on 2 May 2023. The Renewed Trade Mark is a nullity not simply invalid and should be deleted/removed or marked dead as appropriate on the register.” – Para 111(i)
No trade mark ownership: As NHBCL never acquired the trade mark, it lacked standing to bring a claim for infringement.
No goodwill transfer: Although there had been a gradual transition of business elements from the dissolved company to NHBCL, there was no clear, documented transfer of goodwill. The claimants’ argument that goodwill passed informally or via usage was rejected.
No passing off: Even assuming goodwill existed and belonged to NHBCL, the Defendants’ use of the “Notting Hill Shopper Bag” and similar names was not found to be misleading or likely to cause confusion sufficient to establish passing off.
No copyright infringement: NC-S failed to prove subsistence of artistic copyright in the logo or that the Defendants copied it. There was also insufficient evidence to show originality or creative input beyond mere layout of commonplace elements.
Defendants' evidence found lacking but not decisive: The court was highly critical of the Defendants’ credibility and their failure to produce supporting documents. Nonetheless, the legal defects in the Claimants’ claims meant that they failed overall.
What does this mean?
This case underscores the importance of securing and maintaining intellectual property rights. It also shows how important it is to assign rights before a company is dissolved. Once assets become bona vacantia, they belong to the Crown unless effectively re-acquired. A failure to do so will prevent enforcement of those rights.
It also highlights the evidential thresholds for proving copyright subsistence and passing off. Claimants must show clear ownership, originality, and documented use. An absence of supporting documentation can be fatal, particularly when asserting historic rights.
Finally, the case is a reminder that restoring a company to the register does not automatically revive all associated rights. The better solution here would have been for NC-S to have bought the rights that had gone bona vacantia from the Crown.
To find out more about the issues raised in this blog contact Rosie Burbidge.
