Victoria's Secret has secured a significant legal victory in its ongoing trademark battle with British shirtmaker Thomas Pink, after a London court ruled Thursday that a 2015 settlement agreement does not prevent the lingerie giant from pursuing infringement claims in the United States.

Deputy Judge Justin Turner KC, sitting in the High Court of England and Wales, rejected Thomas Pink Shirtmaker LLC's attempt to obtain an anti-suit injunction that would have stopped Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management LLC from pursuing trademark infringement proceedings in Ohio.

The decision opens the door for Victoria's Secret to continue its U.S. legal challenge, setting the stage for a transatlantic dispute over the use of the "PINK" brand.

2015 Settlement Agreement Fails to Block U.S. Trademark Claims

At the heart of the dispute lies a settlement agreement signed in 2015, following a 2014 High Court ruling that Victoria's Secret had infringed two "PINK" trademarks owned by Thomas Pink.

The agreement restricted both companies' ability to assert their respective trademarks against one another in future disputes. Thomas Pink argued that the terms of the deal prevented Victoria's Secret from bringing its current U.S. claims.

However, Judge Turner found that the agreement reflected the commercial circumstances existing when it was signed.

At that time, Victoria's Secret was already making extensive use of the PINK brand in the United States, unlike Thomas Pink, the judge noted.

Allowing Thomas Pink to use the PINK name in the American market would therefore have represented a "considerable concession" by Victoria's Secret. Yet the agreement contained no clear language demonstrating that the lingerie retailer had agreed to such a significant compromise.

The judge also questioned the commercial logic behind the alleged concession, noting that Thomas Pink had failed to explain why Victoria's Secret would have agreed to such an arrangement.

Rejecting the shirtmaker's contention that Victoria's Secret had simply "made a bad deal," Turner concluded that the settlement did not bar the lingerie company from asserting its U.S. trademark rights in Ohio.

"The settlement agreement does not seek to ensure that all future disputes will be avoided, rather it seeks to narrow the circumstances under which trade marks may be asserted," the judge said.

Victoria's Secret Accuses Thomas Pink of Expanding Into Women's Apparel

The London ruling follows a September lawsuit filed by Victoria's Secret in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

In that case, the lingerie company alleges that Thomas Pink has unlawfully sold women's apparel bearing "PINK" marks through retailers including Fashion Nova and Charlotte Russe.

Victoria's Secret claims the British shirtmaker, historically associated with men's dress shirts and suits, has undergone what it describes as a "radical style drift."

According to the complaint, Thomas Pink has begun using variations of the PINK word mark on women's clothing, including T-shirts, yoga pants and zip-up garments.

The lingerie retailer contends that this expansion infringes its U.S. trademark rights, prompting the American proceedings that Thomas Pink sought to shut down through the London court.

Thomas Pink, in turn, relied on the 2015 settlement agreement and its provision granting English courts exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning the agreement's interpretation.

But Judge Turner found that the agreement's terms did not prevent Victoria's Secret from pursuing the Ohio litigation.

From a 2014 Trademark Defeat to a New Transatlantic Battle

The dispute traces back to 2014, when the High Court ruled that Victoria's Secret had infringed two trademarks belonging to Thomas Pink.

The companies subsequently reached a settlement in 2015, seeking to establish boundaries around their future trademark disputes.

Thomas Pink was once owned by LVMH, the luxury goods group behind Louis Vuitton, but is now part of CP Brands Group.

Although the shirtmaker originated in London, Victoria's Secret's U.S. lawsuit targets a Delaware-registered entity within its business in proceedings taking place in Ohio.

The latest ruling does not resolve the underlying U.S. infringement claims. Instead, it removes a contractual obstacle that Thomas Pink had sought to use to prevent Victoria's Secret from pursuing them.

Both companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Legal Teams and Court Proceedings

Victoria's Secret is represented in the U.K. by Michael Silverleaf KC and David Ivison of 11 South Square, instructed by Beck Greener LLP, alongside James Segan KC of Blackstone Chambers, instructed by Kirkland & Ellis International LLP.

In the United States, the company is represented by John R. Richards, Jonathan W. Thomas, Tess Friedman and Molly R. Littman-Johnson of Greenberg Traurig LLP, as well as Dale M. Cendali, Claudia Ray and Shanti Sadtler Conway of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Thomas Pink's U.K. legal team includes Anna Edwards-Stuart KC of 11 South Square and Joseph Sullivan of Quadrant Chambers, instructed by Bristows LLP.

In the U.S., the shirtmaker is represented by Bruce Ewing, J. Michael Keyes and Connor J. Hansen of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, along with Andrew W. Owen and Meredith K. Collier of Calfee Halter & Griswold LLP.

The U.K. proceedings are Thomas Pink Shirtmaker LLC v. Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management LLC, case number IL-2026-000130, and Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management LLC and others v. Thomas Pink Shirtmaker LLC, case number IL-2026-000141.

Both cases are before the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.