
Recently-crowned seven-time champion, Lewis Hamilton, may be one of the greatest Formula One drivers of all time. While the athlete rarely loses on the race track, he is facing defeat in a new arena. As reported by ESPN, Lewis Hamilton has lost a three-year legal battle over Hamilton International’s trademark, ‘Hamilton’.
In 2017, Lewis Hamilton’s company, 44IP, initiated the application to invalidate Hamilton International’s mark in Europe. The F1 driver had plans to develop his own line of timepieces and his company argued that Hamilton International appropriated the trademark in bad faith, with the aim of preventing fair competition.
The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) rejected the company’s submissions on the basis that “there is no natural right for a person to have his name registered as a trademark when that would infringe third parties’ rights”. The court noted that the contested mark could be traced as far back as Hamilton International’s inception in 1892, close to a century before the F1 driver was even born.
Since that time, Hamilton International has supplied watches to WW1 military personnel and even styled Elvis Presley during his role in the 1961 film Blue Hawaii. According to the Daily Mail, Hamilton International is now exclusively entitled to utilize the Hamilton trademark on accessories throughout Europe.
While EUIPO may have waived the checkered flag to close this legal battle, something tells us the F1 legend, who famously has the words “Still I Rise” tattooed across his back and on his helmet, will drive on.
Authors: Meghan King and Maddie Warren
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Carnegie Hall Takes Trademark Center Stage in Legal Battle
Carnegie Hall has reportedly commenced an action against Carnegie Diner and Café for trademark infringement.In its complaint filed with the United States District Court, Southern District of New York… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Federal Court of Appeal Reiterates Permissive Approach to Granting Leave to Amend Defective Pleadings
In Bell Canada et al. v. Millennium Funding, Inc. et al., 2025 FCA 153, Bell Canada and Bell Aliant (collectively, “Bell”) appealed an order granting the Respondents’ (collectively, “Millenium… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Under the Radar, Over the Counter: Goyard's Quiet Battle Against Fake Luxury
Goyard, the Parisian brand established in 1853 and still privately owned, has reportedly faced a surge in counterfeit bags flooding the market. The company refrains from advertising, avoids e-commerce… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Music to Sheeran’s Ears: Supreme Court Declines to Rehear Marvin Gaye Copyright Suit
The US Supreme Court has declined to revisit a copyright dispute over alleged similarities between Ed Sheeran’s 2014 hit, “Thinking Out Loud”, and Marvin Gaye’s 1973 classic, “Let’s Get It On… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Federal Court Reaffirms Importance of Viva Voce Testimony
In McCain Foods Limited v. J.R. Simplot Company 2024 FC 1729, the Federal Court considered the circumstances in which an examination for discovery of a person, other than a person examined under Rule… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Salt‑N‑Pepa Wage Legal Battle to Reclaim Their Recordings
Salt-N-Pepa are reportedly suing their record label, Universal Music Group (“UMG”), to attempt to reclaim rights to their music, including hip-hop staples “Shoop” and “Push It”. As reported by the New…