The spa’s operators, Property Renaissance, brought action against Titanic Hotel two years after the hotel’s opening, citing customer confusion and saying the spa had received calls and emails from customers who believed the two were the same entity.
Titanic Spa’s owners then commenced legal action to protect their “hugely successful business and brand”.
Judge Henry Carr ruled that Titanic Spa’s trademark had been infringed by the hotels actions and that consumers had been confused between the two companies.
Carr held that the Titanic Hotel must take steps to reduce the chance of confusion, including placing a disclaimer on its website and ceasing to use the word ‘spa’ in its materials.
Amy Burton, director of operations at Titanic Spa, said: “The decision to go to court was not one we took lightly. We are well known in the industry and we have no fear of healthy competition but we couldn’t stand by and allow our brand to be diluted in this way.”
“No business owner wants to go to court, devoting resources to litigation rather than building on their success. But one of the reasons we have been so successful ... is that we have invested a lot to build a strong and recognisable brand.”
Taylor Wessing represented Titanic Spa in the litigation, with Jo Joyce acting as the spa’s solicitor.
Joyce said: “Titanic Spa has spent over two years dealing with the customer confusion that has arisen as a result of the infringement of its intellectual property rights.”
“We are hopeful that, in the light of this decision, changes will be made to ensure that such confusion ceases.”