Skip to main content

Sign up for free

  • Get quick access to your favorite articles

  • Manage alerts on breaking news and favorite drivers

  • Make your voice heard with article commenting.

Autosport Plus

Discover premium content
Subscribe

Recommended for you

Hamilton wants "a seat at the table" for F1 drivers in rules talks - but is it viable?

Feature
Formula 1
Miami GP
Hamilton wants "a seat at the table" for F1 drivers in rules talks - but is it viable?

Verstappen: F1 rule changes for Miami GP are "just a tickle"

Formula 1
Miami GP
Verstappen: F1 rule changes for Miami GP are "just a tickle"

Honda details "countermeasures" for Miami GP after horror start to F1 2026 with Aston Martin

Formula 1
Miami GP
Honda details "countermeasures" for Miami GP after horror start to F1 2026 with Aston Martin

Top five roles on Motorsport Jobs this week

General
Top five roles on Motorsport Jobs this week

VR46: 'Plan A' is to keep di Giannantonio for MotoGP 2027

MotoGP
Spanish GP
VR46: 'Plan A' is to keep di Giannantonio for MotoGP 2027

What Apple TV’s Miami Grand Prix coverage means for the future of F1 in the U.S.

Formula 1
Miami GP
What Apple TV’s Miami Grand Prix coverage means for the future of F1 in the U.S.

Top 10 worst follow-ups to title-winning F1 cars

Feature
Formula 1
Top 10 worst follow-ups to title-winning F1 cars

How the MotoGP 2027 rider market impacts the energy drink sponsorship landscape

MotoGP
How the MotoGP 2027 rider market impacts the energy drink sponsorship landscape

Marussia and Manor in trademark dispute over 2015 Formula 1 car

An application for summary judgement brought by Marussia against Manor Grand Prix Racing for trademark infringement by using its name during the 2015 Formula 1 season has been rejected

In legal documents seen by Autosport, the claim stated Marussia licensed the trademark to Manor to use as its Formula 1 team and chassis name, but that the licence came to an end on 31 December 2014.

It added Manor continued to use "Marussia" as the name of its Formula 1 team and chassis for 2015 after the outfit was saved from administration.

If Manor changed its chassis name from Marussia without consent from F1's commercial rights holder, it would lose entitlement to prize money based on previous seasons.

Manor has defended the claim on five grounds, firstly suggesting Marussia "impliedly consented" to the use of the trademark.

It added Marussia estopped, in other words "is barred", from asserting its rights as owner of the trademark.

Thirdly, it said the use of the trademark did not give rise to any "likelihood of confusion" on the part of the relevant public for the purpose of Article 9.1 (b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.

Manor added the trademark does not have "a reputation in the community" for the purpose of Article 9.1 (c) of the aforementioned regulation.

In the fifth and final defence, it said its use of the trademark constituted use of its own name "in accordance with honest practices" for the purpose of Article 12 of the regulation.

In conclusion, Mr Justice Males said Manor has "no real prospect" of proving that its use of the claimant's trademark was with the claimant's consent.

He concluded the estoppel defence is not available to Manor, and that it is "improbable" the trademark defences under Article 9 and Article 12 would succeed.

Males added there is power to make a conditional order requiring the defendant to provide security if it wishes to pursue those defences.

If Manor follows the path, security of £1.75million must be provided.

Manor must now decide whether it wants to pursue defences three, four and five.

The team has described Marussia's claims as "speculative" in a statement.

"Marussia put the company [the F1 team] into administration in 2014," a spokesperson told Autosport.

"We made an offer to acquire the team, including the chassis, which they readily accepted, perhaps assuming we would not be able to get the team up and running again.

"Now that we have, they have launched these speculative claims."

The document also stated the claimant has brought a claim of 'passing off' but that is not the subject of this application.

It also stated the defendant has a pending application to plead a counterclaim for declining to pay some £520,000 for sponsorship rights.

Previous article Hamilton says he promotes Formula 1 more than any other driver has
Next article Why Toro Rosso's other young gun can't be ignored

Top Comments

Latest news