The eco-friendly pet brand Piddle Patch, which rose to national prominence following an appearance on Dragons’ Den, has won a significant trademark infringement case in the UK courts after a judge ruled that a rival company deliberately attempted to profit from its brand recognition.
District Judge Obodai ruled in favour 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 on the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) small claims track at the High Court.
The judge concluded that the defendants had deliberately attempted to benefit from the Piddle Patch trademark and associated goodwill, stating that their actions were part of a coordinated attempt to exploit the brand’s market presence.
In the written judgement, Judge Obodai said the defendants’ conduct was not accidental but formed part of a “deliberate policy to promote the sign in the relevant market”. He added that “passing off is exactly what she intended when she began her campaign of infringement”.
Piddle Patch was created by entrepreneur Rebecca Sloan, who launched the product as a sustainable alternative to disposable puppy training pads. The product uses real grass to provide an eco-friendly indoor toilet solution for dogs, particularly popular with urban pet owners.
Makeality Ltd registered the Piddle Patch trademark in 2016, establishing legal protection over the brand name and product identity.
Over the following years the business built strong brand recognition through a growing subscriber base, endorsements from celebrity veterinarians and dog trainers, and media coverage across national press outlets.
The company’s profile rose significantly in 2022 after appearing on BBC’s Dragons’ Den, where Sloan received an investment offer from entrepreneur and investor Steven Bartlett. The appearance helped propel the brand into the national spotlight and strengthened 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-term customer of Piddle Patch.
During the Covid-19 pandemic she reportedly approached Sloan with an offer to acquire the company. Negotiations did not proceed after Sloan ultimately declined the proposal.
Shortly afterwards, City Doggo Ltd was incorporated 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 optimisation tags and social media posts.
Evidence presented in court showed that the Piddle Patch trademark appeared in numerous areas of the City Doggo website.
These included product titles such as “SHOP: Piddle Patch”, as well as keyword metadata, alt tags and landing page descriptions designed to attract search engine traffic.
The trademark also appeared in hidden text on the website, including phrases such as “Piddle Patch Dragons Den”, which the court heard were intended to capture search traffic generated by the brand’s television exposure.
Additionally, City Doggo registered the domains piddlepatch.info and piddlepatch.shop, both of which directed users to its own website.
The trademark was also used as a hashtag across social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, further increasing the likelihood that consumers searching for Piddle Patch would encounter City Doggo’s products.
The judge concluded that these actions were a calculated attempt to benefit commercially from the existing brand reputation built by Makeality Ltd.
Makeality Ltd argued that City Doggo’s activities caused a measurable decline in traffic to the Piddle Patch website.
The court accepted that the rival company’s online marketing strategy had successfully positioned its website alongside the genuine brand in search engine results.
Judge Obodai noted that this outcome was intentional, commenting that the activity “had the desired effect” because City Doggo’s website appeared alongside the claimant’s when consumers searched for the Piddle Patch name.
The defendants had argued that the alleged infringements were too small or insignificant to be legally actionable, describing them as “de minimis”.
However, the court rejected this defence, ruling that the actions were deliberate and commercially motivated.
During the proceedings Walker-Fooks described City Doggo as a “sideline” business and suggested she lacked experience in intellectual property matters.
The judge rejected this characterisation, stating 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 roles in the investment sector, including serving 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 understanding to recognise the implications of using the Piddle Patch trademark in her marketing.
While the court ruled in favour of Makeality Ltd on trademark infringement and passing-off claims, the amount of financial compensation has not yet been determined.
The case will now proceed to a separate quantum trial, which will establish the level of damages owed to the Piddle Patch brand.
The court also considered requests for an injunction preventing further use of the trademark.
Following the ruling, Piddle Patch founder Rebecca Sloan welcomed the outcome and said the judgement vindicated the company’s efforts to protect its intellectual property.
“We are very happy with the result,” Sloan said.
She added that the case had required extensive preparation and thanked her legal team for their work during the proceedings.
“I’d like to thank our direct access barrister Christy Rogers, who worked tirelessly to help us make our case to the Court. This was by no means a straightforward process.”
The ruling is likely to attract attention among UK entrepreneurs and intellectual property specialists because it highlights how trademarks can be exploited through digital marketing techniques.
The case illustrates how search engine optimisation, domain registration and social media tagging can be used to redirect online traffic and potentially mislead consumers.
Legal experts say the judgement reinforces the principle that digital marketing tactics designed to exploit a rival’s brand reputation can constitute trademark infringement and passing off.
For small businesses and start-ups, particularly those building strong online brands, the case underscores the importance of securing and defending intellectual property rights as businesses scale.
With the Piddle Patch brand continuing 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 capitalise on established brand names.