The Gaydon-based luxury brand is pressing ahead with its trademark action against the Chinese conglomerate, which owns a significant portion of its share register, in a dispute that highlights the delicate politics of cross-border automotive investment.
Aston Martin Lagonda has launched legal proceedings against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, the Hangzhou-headquartered automobile group that owns 17 percent of the British automaker’s shares, over a winged emblem that the luxury brand says is too close to its own iconic emblem.
The case, pitting Britain’s most famous sports car maker against one of its largest shareholders, centers on a logo that Geely wants to introduce on vehicles from its subsidiary London EV Company (LEVC), the Coventry-based maker of the capital’s black taxis. The design features a horse’s head surrounded by two outstretched wings, and Aston Martin claims the overall impression is far too close to the sleek wing motif that has graced its hoods since 1927.
The dispute is not new, Aston Martin first raised objections in 2022 when Geely tried to register the trademarks with the UK Intellectual Property Office. The Gaydon company formally rejected the application the following year on the grounds that there had been a breach, but the hearing officer sided with the Chinese group on the grounds that consumers were unlikely to confuse an electric taxi with a grand tourer worth over £150,000.
That ruling did little to calm sentiment at Aston Martin, and the latest legal salvo suggests the board is prepared to push through on this point despite the uncomfortable shareholder dynamics. Geely acquired its 17% stake in 2023 for around $310 million (£245 million), making it one of the brand’s major backers alongside chief executive 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 British brands over the last decade, with Lotus now firmly established in its portfolio alongside LEVC. His involvement with Aston Martin was initially welcomed as a source of capital and potential manufacturing expertise at a time when the British company was burning through cash to finance its electrification program.
The dispute also comes at a difficult time for Aston Martin’s brand management. The company recently saw 007 move to the big screen behind the wheel of a BYD – a coup for the rival Chinese electric vehicle maker and a blow for a brand whose cultural prestige has long been tied to the James Bond franchise.
In public, both parties downplay the importance of the dispute. Aston Martin declined to comment further on the live proceedings, while Geely described the matter as a routine trademark dispute and insisted it remained committed to a professional working relationship with the Gaydon brand as a business partner and investor.
Trademark lawyers monitoring the case point out that the outcome will depend on whether the courts accept that the average buyer, be it an Aston Martin DB12 or a LEVC electric taxi, might be confused or whether Aston’s winged goodwill motif is being unfairly exploited. It is already clear that the entry of a Chinese partner in the share register is no guarantee of a quiet life in the intellectual property courts.
