Eco-friendly pet brand Piddle Patch, which gained national fame after appearing on Dragons’ Den, has won a major trademark infringement case in the British courts after a judge ruled that a rival company had deliberately sought to profit from its brand recognition.
District Judge Obodai ruled in favor of Makeality Ltd, the company behind the Piddle Patch brand, in a dispute with City Doggo Ltd and its founder Laurencia Walker-Fooks. The case was heard in the Small Claims Track of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) at the High Court.
The judge concluded that the defendants had intentionally sought to profit from the Piddle Patch trademark and the goodwill associated with it, stating that their actions were part of a coordinated attempt to exploit the brand’s market presence.
In the written judgment, Judge Obodai said that the defendants’ conduct was not accidental but was part of a “conscious policy to promote the mark in the relevant market”. He added that “disclosure is exactly what she intended when she began her campaign of violations.”
Piddle Patch was developed by entrepreneur Rebecca Sloan, who launched the product as a sustainable alternative to disposable puppy training pads. The product uses real grass and is an environmentally friendly indoor toilet solution for dogs that is particularly popular with pet owners in the city.
Makeality Ltd registered the Piddle Patch trademark in 2016, providing legal protection for the brand name and product identity.
Over the next few years, the company built strong brand recognition through a growing subscriber base, endorsements from celebrity veterinarians and dog trainers, and media coverage in national press outlets.
The company’s popularity increased significantly in 2022 after Sloan received an investment offer from entrepreneur and investor Steven Bartlett on the BBC program “Dragons’ Den”. The appearance helped bring the brand into the national spotlight and strengthen its commercial position in the pet care market.
Court documents revealed that Laurencia Walker-Fooks, the founder of City Doggo Ltd., had previously been a long-time customer of Piddle Patch.
She reportedly approached Sloan with an offer to take over the company during the Covid-19 pandemic. Negotiations did not continue after Sloan ultimately rejected the proposal.
Shortly afterwards, City Doggo Ltd was founded and began trading in November 2020, entering the same market for dog toilet products.
The court heard evidence that the rival company subsequently used the Piddle Patch name extensively across its digital marketing channels, including website content, search engine optimization tags and social media posts.
Evidence presented in court showed that the Piddle Patch trademark appeared on numerous areas of the City Doggo website.
This included product titles like “SHOP: Piddle Patch,” as well as keyword metadata, alt tags, and landing page descriptions designed to attract search engine traffic.
The mark also appeared in hidden text on the website, including phrases such as “Piddle Patch Dragons Den,” which the court ruled was intended to capture search traffic generated by the brand’s television presence.
In addition, City Doggo registered the domains piddlepatch.info and piddlepatch.shop, both of which redirected users to its own website.
The brand has also been used as a hashtag on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, further increasing the likelihood that consumers searching for Piddle Patch will come across City Doggo’s products.
The judge concluded that these measures were a calculated attempt to profit commercially from Makeality Ltd’s existing brand reputation. to benefit.
Makeality Ltd argued that City Doggo’s activities resulted in a measurable decrease in traffic to the Piddle Patch website.
The court recognized that the competitor’s online marketing strategy had successfully positioned its website alongside the original brand in search engine results.
Judge Obodai found that this result was intended, noting that the activity “had the desired effect” because City Doggo’s website appeared next to plaintiff’s when consumers searched for the Piddle Patch name.
The defendants had argued that the alleged violations were too minor or insignificant to be prosecuted, describing them as “de minimis.”
However, the court rejected this defense on the grounds that the actions were intentional and commercially motivated.
During the trial, Walker-Fooks described City Doggo as a “side business” and noted that she lacked experience in intellectual property issues.
The judge rejected that characterization and said he did not believe her portrayal of limited business knowledge.
Judge Obodai noted that Walker-Fooks had a background in financial services and held senior positions in the investment sector, including as vice president of macro at Lighthouse Investment Partners between 2022 and 2025 before becoming chief operating officer at hedge fund Anahata Capital Management LLC in October 2025.
The court found that she had sufficient commercial insight to recognize the implications of using the Piddle Patch trademark in her marketing.
While the court ruled in favor of Makeality Ltd in relation to trademark infringement and passing-off claims, the amount of financial compensation has not yet been determined.
The case will now undergo a separate quantum trial to determine the amount of damages owed to the Piddle Patch brand.
The court also considered requests for an injunction prohibiting further use of the trademark.
Following the ruling, Rebecca Sloan, founder of Piddle Patch, welcomed the outcome and said the ruling validated the company’s efforts to protect its intellectual property.
“We are very happy with the result,” said Sloan.
She added that the case required extensive preparation and thanked her legal team for their work during the proceedings.
“I would like to thank our direct counsel, Christy Rogers, who worked tirelessly to help us bring our case to trial. This was by no means an easy process.”
The ruling is likely to attract attention from UK entrepreneurs and intellectual property specialists as it highlights how brands can be exploited through digital marketing techniques.
The case shows how search engine optimization, domain registration and social media tagging can be used to redirect online traffic and potentially mislead consumers.
Legal experts say the ruling reinforces the principle that digital marketing tactics aimed at exploiting a competitor’s reputation can constitute trademark infringement and trademark infringement.
For small businesses and startups, particularly those building strong online brands, the case highlights the importance of securing and defending intellectual property rights as companies grow.
As the Piddle Patch brand continues to expand following its national exposure on Dragons’ Den, the ruling represents a significant legal victory for the company and a warning to competitors seeking to capitalize on established brand names.
