Superdry and Manchester City group ordered to mediate dispute

In a landmark move, the High Court ordered a compulsory mediation between Superdry’s owners and Manchester City’s commercial arm in a trademark dispute shortly before trial. The case highlights the growing use of the courts’ new powers to compel alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in commercial cases, following recent legal reforms.

The High Court ordered a compulsory mediation between owners of the clothing brand Superdry and Manchester City Football Club’s commercial arm shortly before their trademark dispute was due to go to trial. DKH Retail Ltd, which owns and operates the Superdry brand, brought a claim against City Football Group Ltd (CFG), alleging that CFG was infringing its ‘Superdry’ trademark.

The dispute arose after CFG made efforts to register and use the name ‘Superdry’ in connection with its commercial and merchandising activities, including apparel — an area where Superdry has a well-established presence. DKH argued that CFG’s use of the name risked confusing consumers and undermining the Superdry brand’s distinctiveness, especially given the overlap in clothing and fashion-related goods.

Although earlier settlement discussions had taken place, DKH applied for an order compelling mediation, suggesting the dispute was commercially resolvable and not overly complex. CFG opposed the request, saying it came too late in proceedings and that a trial was necessary for a judicial determination.

The judge disagreed. Referring to the courts’ strengthened powers to compel alternative dispute resolution (ADR) under recent updates to the Civil Procedure Rules and the 2023 Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council ruling, she ordered the parties to engage in a “short, sharp” one-day mediation before the trial. “Experience shows that mediation is capable of cracking even the hardest nuts,” the judge said, rejecting CFG’s argument that mediation would have little chance of success. She also noted that the timing could work in the parties’ favour, as their positions had already been set out in legal pleadings and witness statements, making it easier to identify potential grounds for settlement.

In January 2025, the parties notified the court that they had resolved the dispute, suggesting the judge’s decision to order mediation had been both helpful and successful. This is believed to be the first reported instance of the High Court using its new powers to compel ADR in a live commercial trademark case — a move that is expected to become more common in future litigation.

Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of mediation and litigation on 020 8290 0333 or email info@judge-priestley.co.uk

For further information on our Dispute Resolution services, please click here.