On September 11, 2026, Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management LLC (“Victoria’s Secret”) sued Thomas Pink Shirtmaker LLC (“Thomas Pink”) and six related companies and retailers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Victoria’s Secret says Thomas Pink’s new line of women’s casualwear infringes and dilutes its PINK trademarks, and it has asked the court for a preliminary injunction that would stop sales of the allegedly infringing products while the case proceeds.
The dispute sits at the intersection of two situations many companies eventually face: protecting an established brand when another company uses a similar name and growing a brand into new products.
What Is a Coexistence Agreement?
When two companies use similar or identical marks, they sometimes resolve or avoid a dispute with a coexistence agreement. Rather than one party abandoning its mark, the parties agree on ground rules: who can use the mark for what products, in what territories, and sometimes in what style or format. These agreements are common where the companies’ goods, customers, or markets don’t meaningfully overlap.
The value of a coexistence agreement lies in its boundaries. The company granting it is not giving up its rights in the mark; it is carving out a defined exception. When the other side moves outside that exception, the agreement generally stops protecting it, although the brand owner must still prove infringement. The Victoria’s Secret complaint is, at its core, about where that boundary sits.
How It Began: A U.K. Case and a 2015 Settlement
The two companies have met before. Thomas Pink, a London shirtmaker founded in 1984 and known for men’s dress shirts and suiting, sued Victoria’s Secret in England after Victoria’s Secret brought its PINK line to the U.K. In 2014, the English High Court ruled for Thomas Pink, finding that Victoria’s Secret’s use of PINK infringed Thomas Pink’s U.K. and EU trademark registrations. The companies settled in 2015. According to the new complaint, that settlement preserved Victoria’s Secret’s right to object if Thomas Pink used PINK outside its traditional men’s shirt-and-suit business.
More recently, Thomas Pink asked Victoria’s Secret for a common request in consent to register several PINK marks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. When a new application looks similar to an existing registration, a written consent from the existing owner can help the application move forward. Victoria’s Secret granted consents in 2025 and 2026 covering a PINK mark with striped lettering and several PINK LONDON marks. It says it did so because it understood Thomas Pink to be staying within its traditional business.
According to the complaint, Thomas Pink instead launched women’s T-shirts, leggings, sweatshirts, and sweatpants bearing plain PINK designs, with no stripes and no LONDON. The complaint calls this a “radical style drift” and alleges that Thomas Pink never disclosed its plans when it asked for consent.
Victoria’s Secret also sued the companies behind and alongside Thomas Pink: two companies it alleges own and control the Thomas Pink brand, a licensing entity, the manufacturer that made the goods under license, and the retailers selling them. That lineup reflects a comprehensive list of defendants that is representative of how branded products often reach the market. A brand owner licenses its name to a manufacturer, which sells to retailers, and trademark law allows claims against companies that knowingly supply, license, or control infringing goods, not only the company that sells them.
Infringement and Dilution: Two Different Claims
Victoria’s Secret’s lead claims illustrate two distinct protections. Trademark infringement asks whether consumers are likely to be confused about who makes a product, or whether one company is affiliated with another. Dilution protects only famous marks, meaning those widely recognized by the general U.S. consuming public, and it does not require confusion at all. A famous mark can be diluted when another use weakens its distinctiveness (known as blurring) or harms its reputation (known as tarnishment). Victoria’s Secret asserts both theories, pointing to online comments calling the Thomas Pink goods “cheap” as evidence of reputational harm.
How Victoria’s Secret Built Its Case
Victoria’s Secret moved quickly. According to the complaint, it discovered the products on August 13, 2026, objected the next day, spent the following weeks in settlement discussions, and filed suit less than a month after discovery. Speed can matter in a trademark case. Federal law presumes irreparable harm once a brand owner shows it is likely to win, but delay can undercut that presumption.
The complaint also shows the kind of evidence a brand owner should assemble before filing. Victoria’s Secret commissioned a consumer survey, in which respondents are shown the products and asked who they believe makes or sponsors them, and reports a 35% net confusion rate. It cites social-media posts in which shoppers called the products “Pink dupes” and speculated about a Victoria’s Secret collaboration. To show fame, it points to more than two decades of use, U.S. PINK sales approaching $2 billion a year, and internal tracking showing more than 80% aided consumer awareness.
What Comes Next
The case is likely to turn on what the 2015 settlement and the consents actually permit. Thomas Pink and its co-defendants are likely to rely on them as authorization for their use. The court’s reading of that language, and of how far Thomas Pink’s permitted business extends, will shape the outcome.
Takeaways for Protecting Established Brands
Draw clear lines and watch them.
Settlements and consents are only as useful as their boundaries. Define permitted use by product category, mark design, and territory; grant consent no broader than the use the other side discloses in writing; and periodically confirm the other side is still operating within those limits.
Build your evidence before you need it.
Routine brand-awareness tracking, advertising records, and social-media monitoring can become the backbone of a confusion or dilution claim, and a well-designed consumer survey can be commissioned before suit is filed.
Act quickly and look at the whole chain.
Prompt objection helps preserve the presumption of irreparable harm, and liability can reach licensors, manufacturers, parent companies, and retailers, not just the company whose name is on the label.
Takeaways for Expanding Brands
Check your old agreements before you launch.
A settlement that permits use in one line of business may not follow the brand into a new one, or extend to licensees.
Know what a consent covers.
Permission to register a particular mark may not extend to a different design or to new products. Being candid about planned use when you ask for consent helps avoid later disputes over what was agreed.
Keep what sets you apart and protect your partners.
Elements that allowed two brands to coexist, such as a house name, a place name, or a distinctive style, may matter more when a brand enters a crowded category. Licensees and retailers should confirm the licensor’s rights and secure appropriate indemnities.
Whether you are enforcing an established brand or taking one into new markets, agreements signed years ago may matter more than you expect. If your business relies on a settlement, coexistence agreement, consent, or license to manage another company’s use of a similar mark, now is a good time to confirm that current and planned use fits within it.
Contact
To discuss further, contact KJK eCommerce attorneys Antonio Dempsey (AFD@kjk.com) and Mackenzie Matulich (MRM@kjk.com).