57 minutes agoWed 10 Dec 2025 at 5:33am

Bed Bath N’ Table has won its case in the High Court after suing a competitor with a similar name. (Supplied)

In short:

The company House began opening new stores under the name House, Bed & Bath in 2021, prompting Bed Bath N’ Table to launch legal action over the trademark.

House, Bed & Bath lost the case, but won an appeal.

Today, the High Court found the original ruling should stand, finding in favour of Bed, Bath N’ Table.

The soft furnishing retailer Bed Bath N’ Table has won its High Court battle against a rival wanting to use a similar name.

The stoush began in 2021 when the company House began opening new stores selling soft furnishings under the name House, Bed & Bath.

The first shop was opened in Doncaster in Melbourne in May 2021.

Bed Bath N’ Table has operated since 1976, and until the first of the House B&B shops opened it had been the only retailer to use the words "bed and bath" in its name.

The brand House is also well established, but had sold mainly kitchen items, and so-called hard homewares.

When the new stores opened, Bed Bath N’ Table took the matter to the Federal Court.

In the first ruling, the judge found there was no breach of the Trade Marks Act, as the "House B&B" mark was not "substantially identical with or deceptively similar to" the Bed Bath N’ Table marks.

But the court found the new name was confusing to customers and was deceptive and misleading, in breach of Australian consumer law.

Store name was just ‘category descriptor’: chairman

The evidence considered by the court included an email that revealed the name of the shops was not settled until the last minute.

One senior staff member recommended "House B&B" as the name, adding that it "[w]ill have Bed Bath N’ Table running scared".

In a later email, the same person noted the lawyers were not too concerned, suggesting "HOUSE Bed & Bath".

The staffer later told the Federal Court that the email was not about any concerns to do with using "Bed & Bath" as a brand, and she did not have trademark issues in mind when she sent the email.

The judge in the original case described her account as "frankly unbelievable".

House Bed & Bath lost the case in the High Court after previously being exonerated by the Federal Court. (Supplied)

The judge was also critical of the company’s founder and executive chairman, Steven Lew, who told the court the new name was simply a "category descriptor" that was necessary to distinguish it from the company’s other stores.

The High Court judgement noted that Mr Lew said it "never crossed his mind" that there might be a potential problem that it was too similar to the Bed Bath N’ Table brand.

The original judge said it would have been extraordinary that a person of his experience as a retailer had not been aware of the similarity.

High Court rules in favour of original judgement

The Federal Court stopped short of finding a commercially dishonest intention.

But it found the owners of "House B&B" had demonstrated "wilful blindness" to the possibility that customers would be confused as to whether there was a connection between the two retailers.

The court ordered that "House B&B" be restrained from selling soft homewares under that name.

"House B&B" appealed and won, but today that was scuttled by the High Court.

The High Court found there was no error in the original ruling in legal principles, fact-finding or reasoning, and the judgement should stand.

The court found the matters considered by the original judge provided cogent evidence that the owners of "House B&B" had "engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct or conduct likely to mislead or deceive" in breach of the law.

But the case is not over.

The Federal Court will now have to decide other issues in the case, including any claim for compensation by Bed Bath N’ Table.