"Lost Mary" Again Blocks Similar Trademark in the UK: “Love Mary” Found Likely to Cause Confusion

Aug.21.2025
"Lost Mary" Again Blocks Similar Trademark in the UK: “Love Mary” Found Likely to Cause Confusion
The UK Intellectual Property Office has rejected Shenzhen Sendao Technology Co., Ltd.’s application to register the “Love Mary” trademark, siding with iMiracle (HK) Ltd., the owner of “Lost Mary.” The ruling determined that “Love Mary” was highly similar to “Lost Mary,” likely to mislead consumers, and risked damaging iMiracle’s established reputation and interests in the UK market.

 

Key Points:

 

Case Background:

  • Plaintiff (opponent): iMiracle (HK) Ltd. – owner of the “Lost Mary” brand.
  • Defendant (applicant): Shenzhen Sendao Technology Co., Ltd. – applied in 2022 to register the “Love Mary” trademark, covering e-cigarettes and related products.
  • iMiracle argued that “Love Mary” was too similar to “Lost Mary,” likely to confuse consumers.

 

Main Dispute:

  • The central issue was whether “Love Mary” would cause marketplace confusion.
  • iMiracle accused Sendao of attempting to exploit the reputation of “Lost Mary” through similarities in name, packaging, and typeface.
  • Sendao argued that “Love” and “Lost” conveyed different concepts sufficient for distinction.

 

Ruling:

  • The UK Intellectual Property Office ruled to reject Sendao’s “Love Mary” application, finding that it carried a risk of misleading consumers and potentially harming iMiracle’s reputation.
  • The decision emphasized that iMiracle had built strong market recognition and sales for “Lost Mary” in the UK since 2022, warranting legal protection.

 


 

According to a report by Law360 on August 20, the maker of the well-known disposable vape brand Lost Mary successfully won its case to block a competitor’s attempt to register the “Love Mary” trademark, on the grounds that it could mislead consumers into buying lookalike products.

 

“Love Mary” Trademark Rejected Due to High Risk of Confusion with “Lost Mary”

 

“A significant portion of consumers who have previously come into contact with the earlier mark are likely to fail to notice the differences, despite the conceptual distinction between ‘love’ and ‘lost,’” wrote hearing officer Rosie Le Breton in the ruling.

 

In 2022, Shenzhen Sendao Technology Co., Ltd. applied to register the “Love Mary” trademark for e-cigarettes, related tobacco products, filters, and lighters. iMiracle (also the manufacturer of the popular Elf Bar vapes) opposed the application, arguing that shoppers would confuse the two brands. The decision, dated August 11 and now made public, upheld iMiracle’s opposition.

 

The hearing officer noted that iMiracle had been selling e-cigarettes under the “Lost Mary” mark since March 2022 and that there was “no doubt” the company enjoyed significant market reputation.

 

The ruling further highlighted that in the seven months leading up to Sendao’s October 2022 application, iMiracle’s monthly revenue rose dramatically from £1 million (about US$1.3 million) to over £9 million.

 

The officer also found that Shenzhen Sendao Technology Co., Ltd.’s products used packaging and typeface similar to iMiracle’s, suggesting an intent to deceive consumers into mistakenly purchasing rival products.

 

Such conduct created an obvious risk of reputational harm to iMiracle, as dissatisfied customers might wrongly attribute negative experiences with Sendao’s products to iMiracle.

 

Moreover, the officer determined that the marks were very similar in appearance and sound, covering identical or highly similar products, and that both conveyed overlapping concepts since each referenced a character named “Mary.”

 

Even if some consumers noticed the difference between “Love” and “Lost,” a significant proportion would still be indirectly confused, perceiving the two as alternative product ranges from the same company.

 

The case was registered as O/0747/25 under trademark number 3841865, with Shenzhen Sendao Technology Co., Ltd. as applicant and iMiracle (HK) Ltd. as opponent.

 

Both iMiracle and Shenzhen Sendao Technology Co., Ltd. have not yet issued public comments on the ruling.

 

Comparison chart of Love Mary and Love Mary products | Chart made by: 2Firsts

 

iMiracle’s Continued Trademark Enforcement: Lawsuit Against “Found Mary”

 

This is not iMiracle’s first trademark defense in the UK market. The company previously sued Vapes-Bars Ltd., alleging that its “Found Mary” disposable vapes copied the appearance, name, and colors of “Lost Mary” to gain unfair advantage.

 

In August 2023, iMiracle filed a lawsuit against the UK-based brand Found Mary, arguing that its products were nearly identical to Lost Mary, infringing on iMiracle’s trademark rights.

 

iMiracle sought a court order to prohibit Vapes-Bars, the company behind Found Mary, from selling any e-cigarettes under the “Found Mary” brand in the UK and from misrepresenting its business as being connected to iMiracle.

 

At the time, Vapes-Bars claimed it had filed applications for five trademarks under the Found Mary name. iMiracle responded that it had already lodged oppositions or invalidity proceedings against all five.

 

 

 

We welcome news tips, article submissions, interview requests, or comments on this piece.

Please contact us at info@2firsts.com, or reach out to Alan Zhao, CEO of 2Firsts, on LinkedIn


Notice

1.  This article is intended solely for professional research purposes related to industry, technology, and policy. Any references to brands or products are made purely for objective description and do not constitute any form of endorsement, recommendation, or promotion by 2Firsts.

2.  The use of nicotine-containing products — including, but not limited to, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, nicotine pouchand heated tobacco products — carries significant health risks. Users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions.

3.  This article is not intended to serve as the basis for any investment decisions or financial advice. 2Firsts assumes no direct or indirect liability for any inaccuracies or errors in the content.

4.  Access to this article is strictly prohibited for individuals below the legal age in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright

 

This article is either an original work created by 2Firsts or a reproduction from third-party sources with proper attribution. All copyrights and usage rights belong to 2Firsts or the original content provider. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or any other form of unauthorized use by any individual or organization is strictly prohibited. Violators will be held legally accountable.

For copyright-related inquiries, please contact: info@2firsts.com

 

AI Assistance Disclaimer

 

This article may have been enhanced using AI tools to improve translation and editorial efficiency. However, due to technical limitations, inaccuracies may occur. Readers are encouraged to refer to the cited sources for the most accurate information.

We welcome any corrections or feedback. Please contact us at: info@2firsts.com

US ITC Judge Finds Glas Infringed Two JUUL Vape Patents, Recommends Restrictions on Related Imports——Glas Received FDA Marketing Authorization for Four Vape Pods in May 2026; Proposed Restrictions Remain Under Commission Review
US ITC Judge Finds Glas Infringed Two JUUL Vape Patents, Recommends Restrictions on Related Imports——Glas Received FDA Marketing Authorization for Four Vape Pods in May 2026; Proposed Restrictions Remain Under Commission Review
A U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) administrative law judge issued an initial determination on October 20, 2026, finding that certain Glas vaping devices, cartridges and components infringed 12 claims across two patents asserted by JUUL, constituting a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The judge recommended a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against the Glas respondents. Five months earlier, the FDA authorized four Glas e-cigarette pods, including mango, blueberry and two menthol variants. The patent investigation concerns device and cartridge structures and is separate from FDA premarket review. The proposed import restrictions have not become final, and their product-level scope remains unresolved.
company
Nov.05
UK Vape Duty Starts in October as Hayati, DOJO and Others Launch Lower-Capacity Products With Lower Per-Unit Tax
UK Vape Duty Starts in October as Hayati, DOJO and Others Launch Lower-Capacity Products With Lower Per-Unit Tax
The UK's Vaping Products Duty will take effect on October 1, 2026, at a flat rate of £2.20 per 10ml of vaping liquid. Ahead of implementation, DOJO, PIXL and Hayati have introduced or been reported to be adding lower-capacity tiers alongside larger products. DOJO has added a 6ml BLAST7K Fresh below its 10ml BLAST10K Fresh, PIXL offers both a 12ml 8000 and a 6ml 5K, while retailer Ninja Vapes says Hayati is preparing a 7ml 4K alongside its existing 12ml 6K. The pattern points to a growing lower-capacity tier in the UK market, although the brands have not all explicitly linked the changes to the new duty.
Sep.23
U.S. Military Could Test Nicotine Pouches and Vapes for Smoking Cessation as Washington Examiner Cites ZYN and Potential $4 Billion Reduction in Related Defense Costs
U.S. Military Could Test Nicotine Pouches and Vapes for Smoking Cessation as Washington Examiner Cites ZYN and Potential $4 Billion Reduction in Related Defense Costs
The House-passed FY2027 National Defense Authorization Act includes a provision authorizing the defense secretary to conduct a one-year smoking-cessation pilot for active-duty service members. Section 707 lists counseling, nicotine gum and patches alongside what the bill calls "electric nicotine delivery systems," nicotine pouches and heat-not-burn products. A recent Washington Examiner op-ed cited ZYN as an example in arguing for the provision, but the legislation does not name any commercial brand or supplier. ZYN is made by PMI-owned Swedish Match USA, with specified products holding FDA marketing authorizations and modified risk orders.
Sep.20
Product | PIXL Adds 6ml PIXL 5K in UK Alongside 12ml PIXL 8000 as Vape Duty Takes Effect
Product | PIXL Adds 6ml PIXL 5K in UK Alongside 12ml PIXL 8000 as Vape Duty Takes Effect
Vaping brand PIXL has introduced the PIXL 5K reusable prefilled pod device in the UK, featuring a 2ml prefilled pod and a 4ml refill container with a combined e-liquid capacity of 6ml. The device uses 20mg/ml nicotine salt e-liquid and is advertised to deliver up to approximately 5,000 puffs. Available through UK retailers by August 2026, the PIXL 5K sits alongside the existing 12ml PIXL 8000. The UK's Vaping Products Duty took effect on October 1 at £0.22 per millilitre, producing theoretical duty amounts of £1.32 and £2.64 for the two products' respective full refill sets.
product
Oct.10
Ukraine Raises Excise Stamp Fees for Tobacco, Heated Tobacco and Vape Liquids by 30.5% as Parliament Backs E-Excise Delay to 2027
Ukraine Raises Excise Stamp Fees for Tobacco, Heated Tobacco and Vape Liquids by 30.5% as Parliament Backs E-Excise Delay to 2027
Ukraine's Cabinet of Ministers adopted Resolution No. 1259 on October 15, 2026, increasing excise stamp production fees for tobacco products and e-cigarette liquids by approximately 30.5%, from UAH 0.1643 to UAH 0.2144 per stamp. Fees for alcoholic beverages rose by about 30.2%. Separately, Ukraine's parliament passed Bill No. 15532 on October 13, proposing to postpone the full implementation of electronic excise stamps and traceability for alcohol, tobacco and e-cigarette liquids from November 1, 2026, to July 1, 2027. Parliament cited additional testing, configuration and integration requirements. The bill was sent to the president for signature on October 19.
Regulations
Oct.21
Special Report | Altria's NACS Booth Raises Questions Over U.S. Tobacco Advertising Warnings
Special Report | Altria's NACS Booth Raises Questions Over U.S. Tobacco Advertising Warnings
During its coverage of Altria's booth at NACS Show 2026, 2Firsts documented product displays that prompted questions about U.S. tobacco advertising warning requirements. Following public comments from a former FDA official, 2Firsts sought responses from Altria and independently consulted U.S. regulatory lawyer Azim Chowdhury. Altria maintained that its B2B communications complied with applicable laws, while Chowdhury explained that federal warning rules provide no general trade-show exemption for e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches. The special report examines the broader regulatory implications.
Nov.04