Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 AUGUST 2011

It's All In The Name

Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
Contributor
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Charles Russell Speechlys is an international law firm with a focus on private capital, at the...

View firm profile
Explore more from Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Lining up on the starting grid for the 2011 F1 Season were two Malaysian-owned teams, both with Renault engines... and both racing under the Lotus brand – 'Team Lotus' and 'Lotus Renault GP'.

United KingdomIntellectual Property
Ben Rees
Ben Rees

It's all in the name

Lining up on the starting grid for the 2011 F1 Season were two Malaysian-owned teams, both with Renault engines... and both racing under the Lotus brand – 'Team Lotus' and 'Lotus Renault GP'.

The Lotus name first returned to Formula 1 in 2010, following a 16 year sabbatical, with Malaysian entrepreneur Tony Fernandes' newly formed '1 Malaysia Racing Team' (1MRT). A year on, and Fernandes' team, currently driving under the 'Team Lotus' moniker, have been locked in a bitter dispute with 'Group Lotus', owned by Malaysian car giant Proton, over the use of the famous racing name.

Background

In 2009 Fernandes, owner of the Malaysian budget airline Air Asia and long time Formula 1 fan, entered into a licence with Proton to enable 1MRT to race under the Lotus brand in their debut season and beyond (the 2009 Licence). The new Lotus team, with drivers Jarno Trulli and Heikki Kovalainen, failed to score a Championship point but were widely seen as

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Samsung Ordered To Pay The Swatch Group US$11.6 Million In Damages For Trade Mark Infringement

The High Court has awarded the Swatch Group US$11.6 million in negotiation damages against Samsung for trade mark infringements involving watch face apps on the Galaxy App store. Rejecting both parties' extreme valuations of US$170 million and US$301, the court established important principles for assessing damages when brand owners don't license their marks and no comparable market royalties exist.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Mishcon de Reya LLP
Mishcon de Reya LLP
Article

High Court Clarifies The Limits Of Copyright Claims Against Online Marketplaces

The UK High Court has delivered a landmark ruling on online marketplace liability, dismissing Shein's copyright infringement claims against Temu and clarifying when platforms can be held responsible for third-party content. The judgment examines the boundaries of copyright ownership in complex supply chains and establishes important precedents for how marketplace operators should respond to infringement allegations.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

The Sound Of Ownership: Why AI Voice Cloning Is Raising New IP Questions

As AI voice cloning technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and accessible, the Save Our Voices Now campaign calls for statutory rights allowing individuals to own and control their voice as intellectual property. This article examines whether existing UK law sufficiently protects one of our most personal and recognisable attributes, exploring copyright, trade marks, passing off, and the practical steps individuals and businesses can take.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Ashfords LLP
Ashfords LLP
Article

AI, Deepfakes And Image Rights: Does English Law Protect Your Face, Voice And Likeness?

Generative AI has created a legal vacuum where synthetic images and deepfakes can be created and shared without consent, yet English law offers no standalone "image right" to protect individuals. With celebrities like Lisa Riley and over 80 performers demanding reform, the question is whether the UK's patchwork of intellectual property, data protection, and common law protections can adequately address this rapidly evolving threat to personal autonomy and reputation.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Mills & Reeve LLP
Mills & Reeve LLP
Article

What July 2026’s Bank Of England Decision Means For Private Capital Stakeholders

As widely anticipated, the Bank of England voted last week to hold Bank Rate at 3.75%. Whilst markets had expected the decision, it is noticeable that the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) moved from a 7-2 decision, to a 6-3 one, with three members favouring a 0.25% increase. The move demonstrates the continued uncertainty around the UK’s inflationary environment, particularly in light of geopolitical tension, tariffs and trade disruption and political change, and their combined impact on global energy prices and the wider economic outlook.
United KingdomFinance and Banking
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
Article

Summer 2026 Update: Where Are We Are On The Government’s Roadmap To Commonhold?

The UK Government has announced plans to introduce a substantially amended Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill in Autumn 2026, incorporating recommendations from the Housing Select Committee that could accelerate major changes to residential property ownership. Key proposals include reducing ground rent caps from £250 to nil after just 20 years, mandating automatic conversion to commonhold after collective enfranchisement, and establishing an independent regulator for property managing agents with enf
United KingdomReal Estate and Construction
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP