Someone stole my name. What can I actually do in the UK?

Sometimes someone has not actually “stolen” your name. They may have incorporated a similar company name, filed a later trade mark, started trading under a conflicting brand, bought the obvious domain, or simply wandered too close to your identity without realising it. Those are not all the same problem. The legal route depends on what they have done, when they did it, and what rights you can prove.

Start by identifying which conflict you are dealing with

If they filed a later trade mark, speed matters

Once a UK application is published, there is an initial 2 month opposition window, extendable by 1 month with a TM7A notice. That means discovering the conflict early gives you materially better options than finding out six months later. This is why monitoring matters.

If the period is still open, a fast opposition strategy may be possible. If the application has already matured into a registration, the routes shift toward invalidation, revocation, negotiation or court proceedings, depending on the facts.

If you do not have a registered mark, all is not necessarily lost

Many business owners assume they are helpless without a registration. That is not right. UK law can still protect an unregistered trading name through passing off. The classic formulation, from the Jif Lemon case, is the familiar trinity of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage.

That sounds elegant. In practice it means this. You need a real trading reputation attached to the sign, you need a misrepresentation that is likely to make people think the other party is you or connected with you, and you need actual or likely damage. No goodwill, no case. No misrepresentation, no case. No damage, no case.

But passing off is not a free-for-all

1. Goodwill must exist in the UK

Starbucks (HK) v British Sky Broadcasting is the obvious warning. Reputation abroad, website visibility, or online noise alone are not enough. For a UK passing off claim, the goodwill must be in the UK.

2. Small businesses can still win

The courts have also made clear that there is no rule saying only large businesses count. Modern authorities discussing Lumos Skincare v Sweet Squared confirm that even a limited business with limited goodwill can protect it.

3. Descriptive names get thinner protection

If the shared elements of the name are descriptive, the scope of protection narrows. That is not just old theory. The Company Names Tribunal still applies that reality. In practical terms, a coined brand like Kodak is easier to defend than something like “Bright Cleaning Solutions”. See how major brands appear in practice on our trademark wiki.

If the problem is a company name, the Company Names Tribunal may matter

The Company Names Tribunal deals with cases where a company name has been registered in circumstances that suggest opportunism, or where the name is the same as, or sufficiently similar to, a name in which another person has goodwill, such that the public would likely assume a connection. If the tribunal upholds the complaint, it can order a name change and, if the order is ignored, Companies House can ultimately replace the name with the company number.

Recent decisions are useful because they show both the promise and the limits of this route.

• Capita Support Ltd. A classic example of a major brand objecting to a highly similar name, with the tribunal examining similarity, alleged confusion and the respondent’s explanation.
• Polycoat Ltd. Helpful because it stresses that mere ownership of a trade mark is not automatically enough in this forum. Goodwill and likely misleading connection still matter.
• Carpet Factory Ltd. Useful as a warning that descriptive names do not receive the same practical scope as distinctive names.

If you do own a registered trade mark, infringement may be the cleaner route

Where you have a valid registration and the other party is using an identical or similar sign in the course of trade for identical or similar goods or services, section 10 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 becomes central. The argument then usually turns on similarity of signs, similarity of goods or services, and likelihood of confusion. In some cases reputation-based arguments also matter.

Still, do not treat registration as an automatic win. Scope matters. Classes matter. Market context matters. Any honest limits under section 11 matter.

Evidence beats outrage

When a founder believes someone has stolen the name, the first instinct is often emotional. The law is colder. Courts and tribunals care about dates, documents, use, customers, invoices, screenshots, filings, turnover, ads, packaging, listings, geography and chronology.

What a conflict report should deliver

A conflict report will not replace a solicitor in a hot dispute, but it provides the expensive triage that you urgently need.

• What exactly has the other side registered or filed.
• Which classes overlap with yours and which do not.
• Whether the issue looks more like infringement, passing off, a company name problem, or just unpleasant but lawful coexistence.
• Which deadlines are live.
• What evidence you should collect next.
• Whether the pattern suggests attorney escalation now, or measured monitoring first.

When the right answer is not a fight

Not every conflict justifies war. If the other side is earlier, stronger, better funded, registered in the right classes, and trading in the same channel, the cheapest answer may be a controlled rename while the business is still small. Painful, yes. Rational, often also yes.

Conversely, if you are earlier, distinctive, well-documented and the conflict is live in overlapping fields, a robust response may be entirely justified. The report should help you see which world you are in.

Bottom line. If someone has moved onto your brand territory, the first step is not rage. It is diagnosis. Work out what they filed, when they filed it, what rights you can actually prove, and which route applies. That is exactly the gap a conflict report should fill.