Jellycat Files Legal Actions Against Next, Hamleys, and Bessie London – What Issues Do Cases Like These Usually Centre On?

For business owners who have spent years developing a successful brand, earning a loyal fanbase and strong market position, it can be frustrating to see similar products enter the market. Fortunately, the UK legal system offers protection in such cases.

With the support and advice of Intellectual Property Solicitors, businesses can take legal action for what is known as passing off, trade mark infringement or design infringement.

As of May 2026, Jellycat, the British soft toy company owned by Jelly Holdings, finds itself in this position. The company has filed claims of passing off and/or trade mark infringement against three major UK retailers.

The details

On 15 May 2026, Jellycat filed legal action in the London High Court against Bessie London. A week later, on 22 May 2026, it also filed claims against Next Retail and Hamleys of London.

Each claim likely concerns intellectual property (IP) disputes relating to design rights, trade marks and passing off. An interesting and relatively rare aspect of this case is Hamleys’ status as an authorised seller of Jellycat products.

Has Jellycat filed similar claims in the past?

Yes. In 2024, Jellycat filed a lawsuit against Aldi over what it claimed was a “dupe” of its Dexter the Dragon soft toy.

Jellycat described the product as “strikingly similar” to its own, with many social media users also referring to Aldi’s product as a dupe. The case ultimately resulted in Aldi ceasing sales of the product in question.

It is worth noting that Aldi did not admit liability; rather, it agreed to stop selling the allegedly infringing product.

Jellycat’s approach to Intellectual Property

Jellycat owns exclusive UK trade marks and registered designs covering a wide range of categories, from soft toys and games to clothing and fashion accessories.

According to a spokesperson, the brand “put[s] skill and love into creating every Jellycat character” and is “very protective of [its] designs and [its] fans.”

This stance, alongside its brand protection statement and prior legal action against Aldi, demonstrates how businesses can actively protect their intellectual property—and the importance of doing so.

With appropriate legal support, businesses can mitigate risks associated with counterfeiting, passing off, and trade mark or design infringement.

What issues do claims like Jellycat’s typically raise?

While specific details of the current claims have not yet been made public, cases commonly centre on:

1. Similarity of products

In a case concerning the appearance of products, do the products share characteristics such as shape, proportion, or materials? Do they evoke another brand? To what extent do similarities stem from originality versus common design features?

2. Likelihood of consumer confusion

Would the average consumer believe the product originates from another brand? Might they assume new products are authorised by, or affiliated with, that brand?

3. Strength and scope of IP rights

What registered trade marks or designs does each party hold? Do these protections apply only to individual products, or extend more broadly to the brand’s overall “look and feel”?

In summary, the key issue will likely be whether Next, Hamleys, and Bessie London have created products with a sufficiently similar look and feel to Jellycat’s designs, and whether any such similarity could mislead consumers into believing the products are genuine Jellycat items.

For more information about this article or any other aspect of IP law, contact Napthens Solicitors. Our team of specialist solicitors advises on all areas of IP, including trade marks, copyright, patents, and design rights.