Sherlock Holmes and the case of the trademark battle: Arthur Conan Doyle’s estate wins fight with businessman over name of detective’s sidekick Dr Watson
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s estate has successfully prevented a Manchester-area clothing businessman from registering “Dr Watson” as a UK trademark for apparel. The ruling matters because it protects the estate’s existing trademarks and finds that consumers could wrongly assume the clothing was connected with or endorsed by the Sherlock Holmes rights holders.
Joel Brown sought registration for leisurewear, sportswear, footwear and headgear, while the estate argued this overlapped with its “Dr Watson” and “Holmes and Watson” marks covering protective clothing, footwear and headgear. A UK Intellectual Property Office hearing officer said a significant share of the public would recognise Dr Watson as the literary character, but that the name remained sufficiently distinctive for the relevant goods and could cause confusion; Mr Brown was ordered to contribute £1,300 towards costs.
- Conan Doyle’s estate blocked a “Dr Watson” clothing trademark.
- UKIPO found consumers could confuse the brands.
- The businessman must pay £1,300 towards costs.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The estate’s strongest case is that trademarks exist to prevent consumers being misled about commercial origin, and “Dr Watson” on clothing could plausibly suggest an official Sherlock Holmes-related product line or endorsement. Protecting distinctive, established marks also lets rights holders safeguard the reputation built around literary characters and invest in licensed goods without imitators benefiting from that association.
The case against
The strongest case for Mr Brown is that a well-known fictional character has entered shared cultural language, and trademark protection should not give an estate excessively broad control over ordinary uses of a familiar name. Where the proposed clothing is independently branded and not presented as official merchandise, critics may argue that consumers are capable of distinguishing it from licensed Sherlock Holmes products, and that overlapping classes alone should not foreclose legitimate commercial activity.