Superdry VS Manchester City: How Mediation led to a settlement
In a landmark case that highlights the growing role of mediation in intellectual property disputes, Superdry and Manchester City Football Club resolved their trademark conflict through a court-ordered mediation in January 2025.
THE TRADEMARK DISPUTE
The disagreement arose when Manchester City signed a sponsorship deal with Asahi, the Japanese brewing giant. As part of the agreement, Manchester City's training kits featured branding for Asahi's "Super Dry" beer.
However, UK fashion retailer Superdry argued that the branding could lead to consumer confusion, given its well-established trademark. Superdry filed a claim, stating that Asahi's branding closely resembled its own, potentially misleading customers into associating the beer brand with the clothing retailer.
RESISTANCE TO MEDIATION
Initially, Manchester City resisted engaging in mediation, preferring to defend its position in court. The club argued that Asahi's branding was distinct and that there was no genuine risk of confusion among consumers.
Despite this stance, the High Court intervened and ordered the parties to mediate before proceeding with a full trial. This decision reflects the courts' increasing willingness to mandate mediation in commercial disputes, even when one party is reluctant.
THE MEDIATION PROCESS AND OUTCOME
Following court-ordered mediation, the parties reached a confidential settlement, avoiding an extended and costly legal battle.
The agreed terms allowed Manchester City to continue displaying the Asahi 0.0% logo on its training kits, but with a crucial modification:
The words "Super Dry" were removed, ensuring there was no direct similarity to Superdry's branding.
This outcome demonstrated that even in high-profile disputes where parties are initially sceptical about mediation, the process can lead to mutually acceptable solutions.
KEY TAKEAWAYS: MEDIATION IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES
This case underscores several important trends in dispute resolution:
Courts Are Willing to Mandate Mediation: The High Court's decision to require mediation highlights how judges are increasingly using ADR to resolve complex commercial cases efficiently.
Mediation Saves Time and Costs: Without mediation, this case could have led to a lengthy court battle, consuming significant resources for both parties.
Flexibility in Settlements: Unlike rigid court rulings, mediation allows for creative solutions, such as modifying the sponsorship design instead of outright banning the branding.
Overcoming Resistance to Mediation: Even when one party is reluctant, mediation can lead to a workable compromise, proving its effectiveness in resolving disputes.
