In Advance Magazine Publishers v Cornucopia Entertainment [2026] EWHC 1488, the High Court considered whether the use of the well-known VANITY FAIR, GQ and GQ MEN OF THE YEAR marks by an events company amounted to trade mark infringement and passing off. Did the references merely provide information about high-profile events, or did they mislead consumers into believing there was a commercial connection with the trade mark owner?
The judgment provides a useful reminder of the circumstances in which the unauthorised use of brand names and logos on a website can cross the line from legitimate identification to infringement, exposing the user to liability for trade mark infringement and passing off.
Facts
Advance Magazine Publishers (AMP) is the owner of Condé Nast, the media group behind publications including Vogue, Vanity Fair and GQ. Cornucopia Entertainment (Cornucopia) described itself as an events, hospitality and entertainment agency and as “the world’s largest provider of exclusive access to invitation-only events“.
AMP alleged that Cornucopia had infringed its GQ and Vanity Fair trade marks by offering, or claiming to be able to source, access to the Vanity Fair Oscars Party, Vanity Fair Cannes Party and GQ Men of the Year Awards. AMP maintained that these events were strictly invitation-only and that tickets were not available for sale.
In its defence, Cornucopia argued that the references on its website were purely descriptive, providing general information about prestigious invitation-only events that its clients might aspire to attend. It denied representing that it had any commercial connection with AMP.
Decision
The Court disagreed.
The evidence included pages from Cornucopia’s website and social media accounts featuring the Vanity Fair and GQ events, together with invitations for readers to contact Cornucopia. The pages displayed package details and thumbnails bearing statements such as “Buy Tickets from £…“. AMP also relied on responses sent by Cornucopia to customer enquiries, which included ticket pricing information and requests for customer profiles so that tickets could purportedly be allocated.
The Court found that the use of the marks went well beyond the provision of information and was inherently transactional in nature. The webpages were, in substance, advertisements that conveyed to the average consumer that Cornucopia could obtain access to the events – for a price.
Importantly, the Court reiterated that the absence of actual sales does not prevent a finding of infringement. Advertising alone may damage the origin function of a trade mark by suggesting an unauthorised commercial connection. Here, the overall impression created by the website made it difficult to characterise the use as legitimate informational use.
The Court also found a likelihood of confusion. Although evidence of actual confusion was limited, a significant proportion of average consumers would have understood there to be some form of commercial relationship between AMP and Cornucopia. In addition, Cornucopia’s use was considered to ride on the coat-tails of the marks – taking unfair advantage of the prestige of the marks by transferring the glamour of their image to Cornucopia.
The passing off claim succeeded for much the same reason. Cornucopia’s conduct conveyed the false impression that it was commercially connected with, or authorised by, AMP.
Why Is This Relevant?
It is not unusual for the first response from someone using your trade marks and name on a website without your permission to be that it is just for identification purposes and there is no “use” in a trade mark sense.
This decision demonstrates that the analysis does not stop there. Altruism is in short supply in the modern commercial world and when trade marks are used there is usually a commercial motivation. The key question is whether the overall presentation gives consumers the impression of a commercial connection, endorsement or association. Where a trade mark is used to attract potential customers and support the promotion of commercial services, the use is likely to be regarded as more than merely descriptive.
The case is also a reminder that infringement and passing off do not depend on proof of completed sales. In the advertising context, liability may arise where a trade mark is used to draw consumers in by leveraging the reputation and goodwill of the brand owner, even if the advertised goods or services are never ultimately supplied.
If you have concerns about the unauthorised use of your brand online, or would like advice on protecting your trade marks, please contact our Commercial Disputes team.