Leading magazine publisher and event organiser Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. (first claimant) and its UK subsidiary The Condé Nast Publications Limited (second claimant) (the claimants) have won their claim in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) for trade mark infringement and passing off. The claim was brought against Cornucopia Entertainment Ltd (Cornucopia) for Cornucopia’s advertising for sale of tickets to exclusive GQ and Vanity Fair events organised by the claimants. Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. & Anor v Cornucopia Entertainment Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 1488 (IPEC) (the Decision).
Our new Head of Intellectual Property Law Disputes, Alec Cameron, who acted for the claimants prior to joining Laytons ETL, examines the decision and explores its wider implications for brand owners organising exclusive invitation-only events.
Background
The claimants asserted that Cornucopia’s website (Website), which claimed to be “the world’s largest provider of exclusive access to invitation only events” advertised or offered for sale tickets to exclusive, invitation-only events which they operate, namely the Vanity Fair Oscar Party and GQ Men of the Year Party (the Events) (organised and hosted by the first and second claimant respectively). The claimants asserted that by using the Marks in connection with such activities Cornucopia infringed the rights of the first claimant in its registered marks for VANITY FAIR and GQ (Marks). They also claimed that its use of the Vanity Fair and GQ names constituted passing off. They further asserted that Cornucopia’s founder, Mr. Vohra (second defendant), was jointly liable for the acts complained of.
IPEC Decision
Miss Recorder Amanda Michaels (Deputy Judge of IPEC) upheld claims against the first defendant for infringement of s10(1), s10(2) and s10(3) Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA) with respect to the Marks as well as the claim for passing off. She also held Mr. Vohra jointly liable for the infringements under s10(3) TMA. The IPEC decision brings much needed clarity to important aspects of brand protection for organisers of exclusive events as explored below.
S10(1) claim (double identity)
Cornucopia claimed that its use of signs identical to the Marks was merely ‘informational’ and that it merely offered “concierge advisory services” by assisting interested parties in their application to the Events but without guaranteeing “access in exchange for a fee”.
The judge held that the use was plainly ‘transactional’, i.e. Cornucopia intentionally gave consumers the firm impression that it could supply tickets to the Events, as evidenced by its references to the GQ event as ‘our party’, its use of email addresses, e.g. ‘GQ@....’ and its use of Vanity Fair and GQ branding in photographs and posts.
In the circumstances, the first defendant had used identical signs for services identical to those specified in the Marks.
The judge held that the absence of any actual ticket sales by Cornucopia did not preclude damage to the origin function of the Marks. She held that given that infringing use of a sign may occur “remote from the point of sale, such as in advertisements” as held by the Supreme Court in Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc [2025] UKSC 25, “it is unnecessary to show that sales were made by reason of the Defendants’ infringing advertisements.” This transactional use was misleading and interfered with the Marks’ origin function.
S10(2) claim (likelihood of confusion)
Here the central issue was whether there existed the necessary ‘likelihood of confusion’. The judge held that Cornucopia’s advertising materials clearly gave “a misleading impression that there is some special relationship between the Claimants and Cornucopia Events” and, furthermore, that Cornucopia was responsible for ticket allocation and misled consumers to believe that it could provide access - at a price - to the Events. She had no hesitation in finding that a ‘likelihood of confusion’ existed and s10(2) TMA infringement was established.
S10(3) claim (reputation and ‘link’ in the minds of consumers)
The judge swiftly concluded that the Marks had a ‘reputation’ for the purposes of s10.3 TMA and that the use complained of created a ‘link’ with them in the mind of the average consumer.
She concluded that use was designed to increase the allure of other services which the first defendant could offer to its clients. These activities both diluted the distinctive character of the Marks and took “unfair advantage of the reputation of the Marks for glamour and exclusivity.”
She held that therefore s10.3 TMA infringement had been established.
Passing off
Recorder Michaels held that there had also been passing off by Corncucopia, ruling as follows:
Goodwill
Based on her findings of “enhanced distinctiveness and reputation of the Marks…”, the claimants benefited from goodwill attaching to the Marks when used for “promotion, advertising and hosting of fashion and entertainment events and award nights.”
Misrepresentation
Cornucopia’s advertising and social media posts, as described above, were “liable to deceive members of the public into believing that the services offered by Cornucopia in relation to the Events are connected in the course of trade or associated with the Claimants.”
Damage
These misrepresentations “will have caused or are ‘really likely’ to cause damage to the Claimants by diverting trade, and by affecting the reputation for exclusivity connected with the Marks.”
The first defendant had therefore engaged in passing off.
Joint liability
The Claimants pleaded that Mr Vohra, as founder, Director and person with significant control of the first defendant should be jointly liable for all such acts of trade mark infringement and passing off. The judge noted that in Lifestyle Equities CV v Ahmed [2024] UKSC 17 the Supreme Court set a high bar for establishment of joint liability in such cases, i.e. an individual must have knowledge of the essential facts which make the acts wrongful.
The judge concluded that Mr Vohra “authorised the infringing acts of the First Defendant” but found that it was not established that he “knew or should have appreciated” that the First Defendant’s actions constituted s10(1), s10(2) TMA infringement or passing off. Mere knowledge that the use may give rise to a complaint was not sufficient.
S10(3) joint liability
However, the judge held that at least following receipt of the first cease & desist letter “Mr Vohra was aware of the Claimant’s trade mark registrations, and of their reputation”, and that “Cornucopia was intending to take unfair advantage of the reputation of the Marks for glamour and exclusivity.” She found that he was therefore jointly liable for infringements under s10(3) TMA.
Practical impact
The Decision will be welcomed by organisers of exclusive invitation-only events who have often struggled to prevent these types of activity. It should give them confidence that English courts will provide robust enforcement of their IP rightseven where there is no evidence of actual ticket sales. The finding of joint liability should also serve as a warning to operators of such businesses that they may face exposure to personal liability for acts of wrongdoing.
If you're facing a trade mark dispute, concerns over passing off, or need advice on protecting your brand and reputation, our team can help.
Related Expertise
Disclaimer: This publication is provided by Laytons LLP for informational purposes only. The information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Any questions or further information regarding the matters discussed in this publication can be directed to your regular contact at Laytons LLP or Laytons’ Intellectual Property Disputes team.