A major legal dispute has erupted between former tennis star David Lloyd and the upmarket gym chain that bears his name, centring on his right to use his own identity to promote a new £60 million leisure venture.
The Heart of the Dispute
The conflict stems from plans by Mr Lloyd, 78, to launch a series of family-focused entertainment complexes across the UK, named David Lloyd's Sports Gardens. The centres, planned for locations including Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff, and Norwich, will feature facilities for emerging racket sports like pickleball and padel.
However, David Lloyd Leisure, the health club brand he sold to Whitbread PLC in 1995 for £200 million, is now seeking an injunction against the venture's website. The company, which operates 137 clubs across the UK and Europe, sent legal correspondence last month, accusing Mr Lloyd of pretending to be them.
Expired Agreements and Brand Protection
While Mr Lloyd signed a name deed in 1993 allowing him to use his name for non-tennis activities, this agreement expired in 2018. David Lloyd Leisure asserts it has owned the brand for over 40 years and holds registered trademarks for 'DAVID LLOYD' in sports and leisure since at least 1997.
A spokesman for the company stated they must 'protect our brand and not allow it to be used in a way that will cause confusion among the public'. They expressed specific concern that the Sports Gardens concept—which includes racquet sports, workspaces, and bars—would cause 'very significant confusion' if branded under the David Lloyd name, especially as some proposed locations already host a David Lloyd leisure centre.
Lloyd's Defence and Future Plans
In response, David Lloyd strongly denies any attempt to compete with or imitate the gym chain. 'What they are saying is that I am pretending to be them,' he told The Times. 'I've been working on this for six years... It's a completely different company and a completely different set of shareholders.'
He insists his £60 million pickleball venture is distinct, not operating on a membership model, and that he does not wish to compete, instead wanting the leisure company to be successful. The outcome of this legal battle will determine whether the founder can use his own name for his latest business endeavour.
