Aston Martin Wings Badge Lawsuit: The Most Awkward Legal Fight in Automotive History

A business suing its own investor has an almost Shakespearean quality. Not quite comedy, not quite tragedy, but somewhere in the middle where everyone is technically correct and most likely making matters worse. That’s about where Aston Martin and Zhejiang Geely Holding Group are at the moment, silently and awkwardly continuing to be business partners while embroiled in a legal dispute over a logo.

In 1927, Aston Martin introduced a basic emblem with the words “Aston Martin” in the shape of two wings, marking the beginning of the company’s use of a wing-like logo. Five years later, it changed its logo to a more intricate design that was influenced by winged scarab artifacts that were common in ancient Egypt.

Category	Details
Company (Plaintiff)	Aston Martin Lagonda Limited
Founded	1913, Lionel Martin & Robert Bamford
Headquarters	Gaydon, Warwickshire, England
Wings Badge First Used	1927
Company (Defendant)	Zhejiang Geely Holding Group
Geely Headquarters	Hangzhou, China (near Shanghai)
Geely Stake in Aston Martin	17% (acquired for £234 million in 2023)
Geely’s Subsidiary at Issue	London EV Company (LEVC)
Logo in Dispute	Horse’s head within a set of wings
Initial Trademark Filing by Geely	August 12, 2022
Aston Martin Opposition Filed	January 27, 2023
IPO Tribunal Hearing	September 10, 2025
IPO Tribunal Verdict	March 16, 2026 — ruled against Aston Martin
Legal Costs Awarded to Geely	£2,200 (~$2,900)
Current Status	Aston Martin appealing at UK Court of Appeal / High Court
Other Brands Geely Owns	Volvo, Lotus, Polestar, Geely Auto

Yahoo Finance That badge remains one of the most iconic symbols in the automotive industry nearly a century later. It is mounted on the hood of cars driven by real billionaires and fictional spies. It is heavy. Additionally, it appears that Aston Martin is not in the mood to share.

The new logo that Geely created for its London taxi division, London EV Company, is at the heart of the controversy. Aston Martin claims that the badge, which has a horse’s head in the middle of a set of wings, is sufficiently similar to confuse consumers.

Carscoops The idea that someone buying an electric London black taxi might briefly think they’re getting a piece of the Aston Martin universe is a daring one. The legal argument might be more complex than that. However, it still raises a few eyebrows.

Zhejiang Geely Holding Group attempted to register a trademark of a logo and brand design on August 12, 2022, but Aston Martin objected on January 27, 2023, claiming that the design violated the Aston Martin wings’ copyright. On September 10, 2025, Geely’s attorneys argued during a hearing that many other companies, such as Bentley and Mini, use wing designs in their logos.

RacingNews365 The dispute came to a head. Aston Martin Lagonda was ultimately forced to pay £2,200 to Zhejiang Geely Holding Group after its case was dismissed. On March 16, 2026, this decision was made. News365 Racing

It’s never a good idea to cover your opponent’s legal costs. It is quite different to pay a business that already owns almost a fifth of your equity. No press release can completely erase this type of corporate awkwardness; it’s the kind of information that is discussed in business circles with a mix of laughter and incredulity.

For £234 million, the Chinese conglomerate purchased a 17% share in Aston Martin in 2023, making it one of the British company’s biggest investors. In addition, Geely owns Lotus, Volvo, and its own quickly growing electric vehicle company.

Yahoo Finance In other words, this isn’t some foreign fund operating covertly. Geely has a close relationship with Aston Martin and is well-established in the automotive industry. This makes the choice to proceed with an appeal all the more remarkable.

Since then, Aston Martin has brought the legal dispute back to life by filing a fresh claim in the Court of Appeal, attempting to reverse the 2023 decision and prevent Geely from registering its wings logos. Yahoo Finance’s official statement, provided by a spokesperson, was succinct and direct: intellectual property protection is a top priority, and the necessary measures will be taken.

Geely’s response was almost aggressively measured; it called it routine, insisted that both businesses run independently, and implied that none of this was out of the ordinary. Both parties seem to have received extensive coaching on what not to say.

The fundamental issue that the case compels the automotive industry to address is what’s actually fascinating about this. Wings are not uncommon. These days, the badge of more than a dozen different automakers features wings of some kind. Bentley Carscoops has wings. Mini is able to fly. Over the years, niche manufacturers, motorcycle brands, and aviation-related brands have all aimed for the same imagery.

The wing is a symbol derived from engineering romanticism, mythology, and simple aesthetic ambition rather than an invention of Aston Martin. Aston Martin arrived ahead of schedule. That is important. However, at this point in the history of automobiles, it’s still unclear if “getting there early” equates to legal ownership of the concept.

The logo of the London EV Company, which is heavier, wider, and has a horse’s head, is not an exact replica. Furthermore, it’s not entirely unrelated. The entire dispute resides somewhere in that gap. It remains to be seen if a UK court will ultimately find significant infringement or just a coincidence of beautiful language. It’s difficult to quantify, and judges have not always agreed on the threshold for excessive logo similarity.

Regardless of the result, it seems obvious that this will have an impact on the relationship. Financial agreements don’t always take into account the fragility of business partnerships. Geely declared that it is still dedicated to maintaining courteous and professional relationships with Aston Martin and Yahoo Finance, which is precisely what you say when relationships are, at the very least, complex.

Aston Martin speaks its own language when it says nothing about the larger dynamic. Observing this from the outside, there is something almost poignant about two entities with entwined fates deciding to resolve their differences in court.

Ultimately, this tale is more about identity than logos. For almost a century, Aston Martin has given those wings significance, associating them with elegance, speed, and a particular notion of what a British automobile can stand for.

Only a judge can decide whether that interpretation can be legally defended against a horse’s head on a black taxi. However, there is an odd kind of logic to the desire to defend it, even if it means suing a shareholder. There are some things that are worth the awkwardness.