Top Takeaways:

• Shenzhen Sikary Technology’s appeal to block Bargain Busting Ltd. from registering “Crystal Bar” in the UK was dismissed, cementing Bargain Busting’s claim to the trademark.
• The High Court ruled that Sikary failed to show it had an established reputation for “Crystal Bar” in the UK market before Bargain Busting’s 2022 application.
• The decision impacts Sikary’s ongoing objections to seven other “Crystal”-related trademarks, intensifying a broader legal battle over e-cigarette branding rights in the UK.

Shenzhen Sikary Technology Co., Ltd. has lost its bid to stop competitor Bargain Busting Ltd. from registering the “Crystal Bar” trademark in the UK. The sovereign state’s High Court ruled the Chinese e-cigarette manufacturer failed to prove a prior use for the brand in the British market.

The ruling, issued by Deputy Judge Michael Tappin KC, upheld the UK Intellectual Property Office’s (UKIPO) earlier decision rejecting Sikary’s opposition to Bargain Busting’s UK trademark for “Crystal Bar.” The application was submitted by Bargain Busting in May 2022, prompting a legal clash between the two companies.

Sikary, known for its SKE Crystal Bar disposable vape products, had argued that it had already established significant brand recognition in the UK before Bargain Busting’s filing. However, Judge Tappin ruled that Sikary’s evidence was insufficient to show the brand enjoyed widespread awareness or commercial stability in the UK market at the relevant time.

“Sikary did not establish a protectable reputation in the UK prior to Bargain Busting’s application,” Judge Tappin wrote in his decision, according to a report by Law360. He emphasized that the original UKIPO ruling was sound and based on a rational evaluation of the evidence.

First-to-File Principle Prevails

The case hinged on the UK’s “first to apply” trademark principle, which grants trademark rights to the first entity to file an application — unless an opposing party can demonstrate a prior and recognizable business reputation in the UK for the same brand name, as reported by 2Firsts. Sikary’s inability to meet that threshold effectively secured Bargain Busting’s claim to the “Crystal Bar” mark.

Trademark experts say the ruling underscores the importance of establishing clear commercial use and reputation in the UK before attempting to challenge a competitor’s registration. Under British law, mere overseas success or brand recognition outside the UK is not sufficient to claim prior rights.

Deputy Judge Tappin wrote in his decision: “The objector bears the burden of demonstrating a recognizable reputation in the market. On the evidence presented, Sikary has not done so.”

Broader Legal Battle

The dispute over “Crystal Bar” is part of a larger legal battle between Sikary and Bargain Busting, who are entangled in multiple proceedings before the UKIPO and the High Court over the rights to trademarks in the “Crystal” series. The High Court’s latest decision is expected to influence Sikary’s objections to seven other related trademarks it is challenging.

“This ruling will undoubtedly have a cascading effect on Sikary’s other trademark oppositions involving the ‘Crystal’ name,” noted a trademark attorney familiar with the case. “It reinforces the need for a company to document clear commercial use in the UK market if it hopes to protect its brand against later filers.”

Conflicting Decisions Add Complexity

In a separate ruling in May 2025, the High Court prohibited Bargain Busting from pressuring retailers under claims of trademark infringement while disputes over ownership of the “Crystal” name were ongoing. The earlier decision acknowledged that monetary damages alone could not fully compensate Sikary for potential commercial harm.

As the litigation drags on, retailers and distributors in the UK have been caught in the middle, with uncertainty over who holds legitimate rights to sell products bearing the “Crystal Bar” name. Industry analysts warn that protracted legal disputes like this could further complicate compliance efforts as authorities crack down on illicit or trademark-infringing e-cigarettes.

According to case filings, the dispute over “Crystal Bar” trademarks continues, with further hearings expected later this year. Both Sikary and Bargain Busting have indicated they plan to vigorously pursue their claims, raising the possibility of appeals or additional litigation.