Hugo Boss Demands Liverpool Pet Store Remove Website Over Trademark Dispute

Published 23 June 2025

Highlights

• Hugo Boss has issued a legal notice to Liverpool-based Boss Pets, demanding the removal of its website due to trademark infringement concerns.
  • Ben McDonald, owner of Boss Pets, argues that the term "boss" is widely used locally and poses no confusion with the fashion brand.
  • McDonald has been given 10 days to comply or face legal action, despite his business operating in a different sector.
  • Hugo Boss maintains it must protect its brand rights globally, even in cases involving small businesses.
  • The fashion house is known for its rigorous enforcement of trademark rights, having previously targeted other small entities.

3. Rewritten Article

Headline: Hugo Boss Demands Liverpool Pet Store Remove Website Over Trademark Dispute

In a clash of corporate and local interests, the international fashion giant Hugo Boss has issued a legal ultimatum to a small Liverpool-based business, Boss Pets, over alleged trademark infringement. The dispute centers on the use of the word "boss," a term deeply embedded in Merseyside slang to denote something excellent.

Ben McDonald, the owner of Boss Pets, launched his online pet health supplies store in February. However, his entrepreneurial dreams were abruptly challenged when he received a legal letter from Hugo Boss, demanding the removal of his website within 10 days. The fashion house argues that the name "Boss Pets" infringes on its trademark, despite the term's common usage in the region.

McDonald, who describes himself as "just a lad from Bootle," expressed his dismay, stating that he had invested all his savings into the venture. His lawyer, Francis McEntegart, contends that the pet store operates in a completely different sector and poses no threat to Hugo Boss's profits. "My client is a small local business that is just starting out selling pet wellness products," McEntegart said, accusing the fashion brand of bullying tactics.

A spokesperson for Hugo Boss acknowledged the colloquial use of "boss" but emphasized the company's obligation to protect its brand rights globally. "When we became aware of the registration, we approached the business owner as the intended registration represents an overlap with our trademarks," she explained. The company, known for its stringent trademark enforcement, insists on dialogue to seek amicable solutions.

This is not the first time Hugo Boss has been involved in such disputes. In 2020, comedian Joe Lycett famously changed his name to Hugo Boss in protest against the company's aggressive legal actions against small businesses and charities using the word "boss."

4. Scenario Analysis

The outcome of this dispute could set a precedent for how large corporations enforce trademark rights against small businesses, especially when common language terms are involved. If Hugo Boss succeeds, it may embolden other large brands to pursue similar actions, potentially stifling small business creativity. Conversely, a resolution in favor of Boss Pets could encourage small businesses to stand firm against perceived corporate overreach. Legal experts suggest that the case highlights the ongoing tension between brand protection and the rights of small enterprises to operate without undue interference.

In a clash of corporate and local interests, the international fashion giant Hugo Boss has issued a legal ultimatum to a small Liverpool-based business, Boss Pets, over alleged trademark infringement. The dispute centers on the use of the word "boss," a term deeply embedded in Merseyside slang to denote something excellent.

Ben McDonald, the owner of Boss Pets, launched his online pet health supplies store in February. However, his entrepreneurial dreams were abruptly challenged when he received a legal letter from Hugo Boss, demanding the removal of his website within 10 days. The fashion house argues that the name "Boss Pets" infringes on its trademark, despite the term's common usage in the region.

McDonald, who describes himself as "just a lad from Bootle," expressed his dismay, stating that he had invested all his savings into the venture. His lawyer, Francis McEntegart, contends that the pet store operates in a completely different sector and poses no threat to Hugo Boss's profits. "My client is a small local business that is just starting out selling pet wellness products," McEntegart said, accusing the fashion brand of bullying tactics.

A spokesperson for Hugo Boss acknowledged the colloquial use of "boss" but emphasized the company's obligation to protect its brand rights globally. "When we became aware of the registration, we approached the business owner as the intended registration represents an overlap with our trademarks," she explained. The company, known for its stringent trademark enforcement, insists on dialogue to seek amicable solutions.

This is not the first time Hugo Boss has been involved in such disputes. In 2020, comedian Joe Lycett famously changed his name to Hugo Boss in protest against the company's aggressive legal actions against small businesses and charities using the word "boss."

What this might mean

The outcome of this dispute could set a precedent for how large corporations enforce trademark rights against small businesses, especially when common language terms are involved. If Hugo Boss succeeds, it may embolden other large brands to pursue similar actions, potentially stifling small business creativity. Conversely, a resolution in favor of Boss Pets could encourage small businesses to stand firm against perceived corporate overreach. Legal experts suggest that the case highlights the ongoing tension between brand protection and the rights of small enterprises to operate without undue interference.