Thomas Pink v Victoria's Secret: High Court refuses anti-suit injunction in PINK trade mark dispute

The High Court has held that a 2015 global settlement agreement does not prevent Victoria's Secret from suing Thomas Pink in the United States over athleisure womenswear branded with the word PINK. It refused Thomas Pink's application for an anti-suit injunction.

In Thomas Pink Shirtmaker LLC v Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management LLC [2026] EWHC 2817 (BP), Deputy Judge Justin Turner KC preferred Victoria's Secret's construction of a non-assert clause. He held that it turned on trade mark branding rather than corporate ownership.

Background

The agreement compromised the litigation in which Birss J found in 2014 that Victoria's Secret's use of PINK in the UK and EU infringed Thomas Pink's marks, and set out a framework for global coexistence.

In August 2026, Victoria's Secret discovered that Thomas Pink had launched a US range of athleisure womenswear prominently branded PINK, produced under licence. It sued for infringement in the Southern District of Ohio. Thomas Pink argued that the claim was barred by clause 5.5 of the agreement, which gives the English courts exclusive jurisdiction over its interpretation. Both parties issued Part 8 claims.

The clause

Under clause 5.5, Victoria's Secret agreed not to assert its trade mark rights against Thomas Pink. Clause 5.5.2 excludes from that undertaking any use of a PINK mark "in connection with a brand or a range of products associated with a brand or business other than the TP Business". The TP Business was defined as the business "conducted under the brand name THOMAS PINK".

Thomas Pink argued that "in connection with" required only a commercial connection, so that any product licensed by it, or sold by an affiliate, was protected. Victoria's Secret contended that the agreement was about branding, and that "associated" should be read in its trade mark sense.

Construction

Applying Wood v Capita Insurance [2017] AC 1173, the judge identified two key features of the factual matrix. First, Thomas Pink's success in Europe explained the royalty payable by Victoria's Secret there, but there had been no comparable success in the US. Second, Victoria's Secret was trading extensively under PINK in the US in 2015, while there was no evidence that Thomas Pink was doing so at all.

Allowing Thomas Pink to use PINK in the US, particularly on casual clothing, would have been a considerable concession that would have been clearly stated. While a party may strike a bad bargain, Victoria's Secret could not realistically have overlooked its established US use. The agreement largely preserved the status quo, carving out each party's core market.

The definition of the TP Business referred to a brand, not a set of corporate entities. Reading "business" as a reference to ownership would be inconsistent with the agreement as a whole. The question was whether the products were associated, in the trade mark sense, with something other than the THOMAS PINK brand.

Labelling argument

Thomas Pink's fallback argument, that the products were protected because they carried small THOMAS PINK labels inside, also failed. Birss J had held that external use of PINK infringed despite Victoria's Secret neck labels, because those labels are not seen once a garment is worn. It would make no business sense for an interior label to override the exception.

The non-assert therefore did not prevent the Ohio proceedings, at least for the products in issue, and the anti-suit injunction was refused. The judge declined to grant the broad declarations Victoria's Secret had proposed. His provisional view was that any declaration should be limited to the goods in the Ohio proceedings. The form of relief will be settled at a further hearing.