Aston Martin Lagonda has launched legal proceedings against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, the Chinese conglomerate that holds a 17 per cent stake in the British carmaker, over a winged emblem the luxury marque claims is too close to its own storied badge.
The case centres on a logo Geely intends to roll out on vehicles produced by its London EV Company subsidiary, the Coventry-based maker of the capital’s black cabs. The design features a horse’s head set within a pair of outstretched wings, and Aston Martin contends that the overall impression sails far too close to the slender winged motif that has adorned its bonnets since 1927.
The row is not a new one. Aston Martin first raised objections in 2022, when Geely sought to register the marks with the UK Intellectual Property Office. The Gaydon firm formally opposed the application the following year, arguing infringement, only for the hearing officer to side with the Chinese group on the basis that consumers were unlikely to mistake an electric taxi for a £150,000-plus grand tourer.
That ruling did little to cool tempers at Aston Martin, and the latest legal salvo suggests the board is prepared to press the point despite the awkward shareholder dynamic. Geely acquired its 17 per cent holding for roughly $310m (£245m) in 2023, making it one of the marque’s most significant backers alongside executive chairman Lawrence Stroll’s Yew Tree consortium and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.
For Geely, the London taxi business is a strategically important British asset. The group has been quietly assembling a portfolio of UK marques over the past decade, with Lotus now firmly in its stable alongside LEVC.
The dispute also comes at a bruising time for Aston Martin’s brand stewardship. The company recently saw 007 defect to the silver screen behind the wheel of a BYD, a coup for the rival Chinese electric-vehicle maker.
In public, both parties are playing down the significance of the row. Aston Martin has declined to comment further on live proceedings, while Geely has characterised the matter as a routine trademark dispute.
Trademark lawyers watching the case note that the outcome will hinge on whether the courts accept that the average buyer, whether of an Aston Martin DB12 or an LEVC electric cab, could be confused.