Frasers Property Limited v House of Fraser Brands Limited and others (UK Intellectual Property Office, Registrar S. Wilson), O/0301/26, 7 April 2026
In extensive consolidated proceedings, the Registrar determined more than 30 revocation, invalidation and opposition actions concerning trade marks incorporating the name “Frasers”. The decision resulted in wide‑ranging partial revocations for non‑use, limited findings of bad faith, and the partial refusal of House of Fraser’s FRASERS applications in core commercial classes.
The dispute arose from competing commercial activities carried on under the name “Frasers”. Frasers Property Limited (“FPL”) operated a substantial UK business in property development, investment and hospitality. House of Fraser Brands Limited (“HOF”) operated a long‑established department store business under the HOUSE OF FRASER name and, following its acquisition by Frasers Group, sought to register FRASERS and related marks for a broader range of services, including real estate, financial services and accommodation.
The proceedings combined multiple revocation actions for non‑use, invalidity claims on relative grounds and bad faith, and oppositions to pending applications. Each party challenged the scope and continuing validity of the other’s trade mark portfolio. The central commercial issue was whether HOF could extend the FRASERS name beyond retail into sectors in which FPL was already established.
On revocation, the Registrar found that HOF had shown genuine use of HOUSE OF FRASER principally in relation to retail services, with only limited additional use outside that context. Large parts of its registrations were revoked for non‑use. Use of FRASERS was not accepted as a permissible variant of HOUSE OF FRASER, as omitting “House of” altered the mark’s distinctive character. Evidence relating to concessions, cafés and loyalty arrangements was treated as ancillary to retail services and did not materially expand the scope of protection.
FPL’s marks largely survived revocation, though on narrowed specifications reflecting proven commercial use. The Registrar accepted evidence of genuine use across FPL’s property, investment and hospitality businesses, but revoked certain broader terms.
HOF’s invalidation claims were dismissed, save to a limited extent. The Registrar accepted that HOUSE OF FRASER had a reputation in the UK for department store retail services. The decision did not treat that reputation as sufficient to displace FPL’s position in its core property and hospitality activities, and bad faith was established only to a limited extent.
In the opposition proceedings, FPL succeeded in preventing registration of significant parts of HOF’s FRASERS and FRASERS GROUP FINANCIAL SERVICES applications in property, financial and accommodation classes. The Registrar found a likelihood of indirect confusion in those areas, having regard to the similarity of signs, the overlap of services and FPL’s established presence.
Frasers Property Limited was represented by Guy Hollingworth and Samuel Grimley, instructed by D Young & Co LLP.
View Judgment