Advance Magazine Publishers v Cornucopia Entertainment: IPEC finds Vanity Fair and GQ marks infringed by ticket advertising

The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court has found that Condé Nast's Vanity Fair and GQ trade marks were infringed by a concierge company that advertised tickets to its exclusive events, including the Vanity Fair Cannes Party and the GQ Men of the Year Awards.

Miss Recorder Amanda Michaels, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the IPEC, delivered judgement on 23 June 2026 in Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Anor v Cornucopia Entertainment Limited and Anor [2026] EWHC 1488 (IPEC), finding both trade mark infringement and passing off against the First Defendant, Cornucopia Entertainment, and holding its director Minesh Vohra jointly liable for the section 10(3) infringements.

Background and the change of defence

Condé Nast hosts high-profile invitation-only events including the Vanity Fair Cannes Party, the Vanity Fair Oscars Party, and the GQ Men of the Year Awards and Party. No tickets are sold for these events. From 2019, Cornucopia's website and social media accounts advertised access to these events at prices ranging from £4,999 to £39,999.

The First Defendant initially defended on the basis that it had legitimately acquired access through secondary channels. By trial, the defence had fundamentally changed: Cornucopia claimed it had never sold any tickets and that references to the events on its website were purely informational. The court found Mr Vohra, who conducted the defence in person, to be an unreliable witness, reading answers from his mobile phone in the witness box, giving formulaic responses, and contradicting himself on material points.

Proceedings were further disrupted when Mr Vohra attempted to give evidence by video link from Qatar, which the court declined to permit in the absence of any application to Qatar's authorities. He flew back overnight and attended in person on the second day of trial.

The infringement findings

Applying the distinction established in BMW v Technosport London Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 779 between legitimate informative use and misleading use of a trade mark, the recorder found Cornucopia's advertisements to be transactional rather than informational. The overall presentation of the website, including specific ticket prices, event-specific email addresses and the assertion that Cornucopia was offering "Exclusive Experiences," would lead the average consumer to believe the company had access to tickets and a commercial connection with Condé Nast.

Likelihood of confusion was established under sections 10(1) and 10(2). Under section 10(3), the court found that Cornucopia had taken unfair advantage of the marks' association with glamour and exclusivity, constituting classic parasitism, and that there was a risk of tarnishment through the implication that the events were not genuinely exclusive.

Joint liability

On joint liability, the court applied the Supreme Court's decision in Lifestyle Equities CV v Ahmed [2024] UKSC 17, which requires knowledge of the essential facts making the acts wrongful. Mr Vohra was found not to have sufficient knowledge of a likelihood of confusion to be jointly liable under sections 10(1) and 10(2) or for passing off. Having known of Condé Nast's trade mark registrations and their reputation from at least 2020, and having directed Cornucopia's marketing strategy, he was found jointly liable for the section 10(3) infringements on the basis that he had intended to exploit the marks' reputation for glamour and exclusivity.

The hearing concerned liability only; quantum is to be determined separately.

Theo Barclay (instructed by Stobbs IP) for the Claimants. Minesh Vohra appeared in person for the Defendants.