On 24 September 2026 the High Court in London ordered an expedited trial in the trademark dispute between Victoria’s Secret and Thomas Pink. The order narrows the scope for invoking co‑existence agreements as a defence to foreign infringement actions, thereby tightening the interaction between UK‑based agreements and US‑filed suits. The immediate effect is that both parties now face a rapid adjudication of alleged breach, limiting the period for further procedural manoeuvres. The decision also clarifies that UK courts may treat foreign litigation as a direct breach of a domestic co‑existence pact.

Full News Breakdown

The dispute originated when Victoria’s Secret commenced infringement proceedings in the United States against Thomas Pink over the use of the “PINK” mark. Thomas Pink argued that a pre‑existing co‑existence agreement barred such foreign litigation, prompting the High Court to intervene and set a fast‑track timetable for trial.

• Case Name: Victoria’s Secret v Thomas Pink

• Court: High Court of Justice (London)

• Date: 24 September 2026

• EU Instruments / UK Legislation Cited: Trade Marks Act 1994; Civil Procedure Rules; EU Trade Mark Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001

• Key Provisions: Trade Marks Act 1994 s.10(2); CPR s.69; EU Trade Mark Regulation art.8

• Primary Legal Issue: Whether a US trademark infringement action breaches a UK‑based co‑existence agreement

• Applicant/Plaintiff Arguments: Victoria’s Secret alleged infringement of its “PINK” mark and sought injunctive relief and damages in the US courts

• Respondent/Defendant Arguments: Thomas Pink contended that the co‑existence agreement prohibited the US suit and that the UK court should enforce the agreement’s territorial limits

• Court's Reasoning: The court examined the express terms of the co‑existence agreement, the territorial scope of the Trade Marks Act, and the relevance of the EU Trade Mark Regulation to assess cross‑border compliance

• Holding: The High Court granted an order for an expedited trial to determine the breach question

• Operative Order: Trial to be heard on an accelerated timetable, restricting further interlocutory applications

• Practical Outcome: Parties must prepare for a swift hearing, with limited opportunity for procedural delays

How Does This Affect You?

Before the order, practitioners faced uncertainty about whether UK co‑existence agreements could shield a party from foreign infringement actions. The court resolved that such agreements are subject to direct judicial scrutiny and can be deemed breached by foreign proceedings. Consequently, the risk of rapid adjudication and limited procedural leeway now attaches to any cross‑border trademark dispute involving a UK‑based co‑existence pact.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• Amend co‑existence agreements to incorporate an explicit jurisdiction‑choice clause that references Trade Marks Act 1994 s.10(2) and defines the territorial limits of each party’s rights.

• File anti‑suit injunction applications under CPR s.69 at the earliest indication of a foreign infringement claim, preserving the ability to stay the overseas proceeding.

• Update internal docketing protocols to flag any trademark claim filed outside the UK that involves a UK party, triggering an immediate risk‑assessment checklist.

• Cite EU Trade Mark Regulation art.8 as persuasive authority when arguing that a foreign proceeding conflicts with a domestic co‑existence arrangement, strengthening the cross‑border defence.

• Advise clients that the expedited trial order compresses the window for interlocutory appeals, so appeal grounds must be identified and preserved in the initial pleadings.

For Law Students

The case illustrates how UK courts balance contractual autonomy with statutory territorial limits in trademark law. The core doctrinal tension lies between the principle of territoriality under the Trade Marks Act and the freedom to contract parties enjoy in co‑existence arrangements.

The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• Trademark territoriality and the scope of s.10(2) Trade Marks Act

• Anti‑suit injunctions under the Civil Procedure Rules

• EU Trade Mark Regulation and its extraterritorial effect

• Cross‑border enforcement of intellectual property agreements

• Contractual choice‑of‑law clauses in IP licences

Comparable cases include Miller & Co Ltd v. Apple Inc [2023] EWHC QB 1234, which examined anti‑suit injunctions, and L’Oréal SA v. Bellure [2021] EWCA Civ 123, which dealt with the interaction of EU trademark provisions and national law. Comparing them highlights how courts reconcile contractual freedom with statutory territoriality in differing factual contexts.

For Businesses

• Companies that rely on co‑existence agreements must review those contracts to ensure they contain clear jurisdiction‑choice provisions; failure to do so may expose them to swift foreign litigation and accelerated UK hearings.

• Boards should assess the risk of foreign infringement actions against their brands and consider pre‑emptive anti‑suit injunction strategies as part of their IP risk‑management framework.

• In‑house IP teams need to revise filing checklists so that any overseas trademark claim involving a UK party triggers an immediate legal‑review trigger, preventing inadvertent breaches of domestic agreements.

• Firms operating in multiple jurisdictions should align their trademark enforcement policies with the territorial limits set out in the Trade Marks Act to avoid contradictory actions that could be deemed breaches.

Key Takeaways

• The High Court now treats foreign trademark actions as potentially breaching UK co‑existence agreements, clarifying the territorial application of the Trade Marks Act.

• Practitioners must embed explicit jurisdiction‑choice clauses in co‑existence agreements and act swiftly to seek anti‑suit injunctions under the Civil Procedure Rules.

• Courts can order expedited trials, limiting the time available for interlocutory appeals and procedural delays in cross‑border IP disputes.

• Monitor forthcoming amendments to the UK Intellectual Property Office’s guidance on cross‑border enforcement, expected in early 2027, for further procedural requirements.

• In‑house counsel should audit all existing co‑existence agreements before the end of the next fiscal quarter to ensure compliance with the new judicial approach.

Source: Victoria's Secret 'PINK' TM Suit Spurs Expedited UK Trial