
Aston Martin Lagonda Appeals High Court Ruling in Geely Trademark Dispute
Aston Martin Lagonda has appealed a High Court decision that ordered it to pay £2,200 to Zhejiang Geely Holding Group over a contested wing logo, highlighting the high‑stakes battle to protect its iconic brand.
Aston Martin Lagonda has lodged an appeal in London’s High Court over a trademark ruling that forced it to pay £2,200 to Zhejiang Geely Holding Group. The dispute, dating back to Geely’s 2022 attempt to register a wing‑style logo, centers on whether the design infringes Aston Martin’s iconic wings. After a September 2025 hearing and a March 2026 judgment dismissing Aston Martin’s claim, the company is now back in court to defend its brand.
Why it matters:
- Brand protection: The outcome will set a precedent for how aggressively the sport’s luxury marques can guard their visual identity.
- Legal costs: An appeal prolongs litigation and adds expense, potentially diverting resources from the F1 programme.
The details:
- Timeline:
- Aug 12 2022 – Geely files a trademark application for a wing‑inspired logo.
- Jan 27 2023 – Aston Martin opposes, citing infringement of its wing motif.
- Sep 10 2025 – Hearing; Geely argues that wing designs are common (e.g., Bentley, Mini).
- Mar 16 2026 – Court dismisses Aston Martin’s case, orders £2,200 payment to Geely.
- Apr 13 2026 – Aston Martin files appeal in the Chancery Appeals Division.
- Legal arguments: Aston Martin contends the wings are a distinctive trade‑mark integral to its luxury and motorsport image, while Geely points to broader industry use as a defense.
- Stakeholder response: Aston Martin’s spokesperson declined comment beyond a standard statement on protecting its IP; RacingNews365’s attempts to reach legal counsel on both sides have so far yielded no reply.
What's next:
The appeal will be heard later this year. A ruling in Aston Martin’s favour could reinforce strict protection of automotive icons, while a loss may loosen the grip on wing‑based branding across the industry. Either way, the case underscores the growing importance of intellectual‑property battles in Formula 1’s commercial landscape.
Don't miss the next lap
Get the deep dives and technical analysis from the world of F1 delivered to your inbox twice a week.
Zero spam. Only high-octane analysis. Unsubscribe anytime.
Join the inner circle
Get the deep dives and technical analysis from the world of F1 delivered to your inbox twice a week.
Zero spam. Only high-octane analysis. Unsubscribe anytime.


