Court blocks competitor from using ‘King’ in branding dispute with KingAlarm

KingAlarm Services Limited has secured an injunction blocking competitor KingGuard Security Services Limited from using the word ‘King’ in its branding in an intellectual property dispute between the private security operators.

The interim injunction restrains the St James-based KingGuard, its agents, and representatives from infringing KingAlarm’s registered trademarks – ‘KingAlarm’ and ‘King Alarm Systems and Logo’ – or presenting its services in a manner likely to mislead the public.

KingAlarm applied for the injunction, which was granted by Supreme Court Judge Althea Jarrett on December 22. It followed hearings that month and in May 2025.

KingAlarm was also ordered to provide the usual undertaking to pay damages if it loses the case.

The dispute began in March 2025, when KingAlarm, one of Jamaica’s largest security providers, filed a lawsuit alleging that KingGuard’s branding posed “grave financial and reputational damage” and violated multiple registered trademarks.

KingAlarm claims that KingGuard’s use of the name ‘KingGuard’ constitutes passing off, a legal term that prohibits companies from misleading the public into thinking their goods or services are associated with another.

KingAlarm, founded in 1999 and based in St Andrew, asserts exclusive rights to several registered trademarks, including ‘KingAlarm’, ‘KingAlarm Systems & Logo’, ‘AmbuKing’ and ‘AmbuKing Logo’, used in ambulance and emergency response services.

It also claims common-law rights over unregistered marks, such as ‘KingTracker’.

Brand recognition

The company says it has invested heavily in brand recognition and serves more than 12,000 locations nationwide, employing over 4,500 workers, including 4,000 security guards.

KingAlarm alleges it became aware of KingGuard’s operations in November 2024 and discovered that the company offered services such as security guard operations, courier, and investigations, many of which mirror KingAlarm’s offerings.

KingAlarm alleges that it sent a cease-and-desist letter on November 17, 2024, demanding the removal of ‘King’ from KingGuard’s name, marketing, uniforms, and signage. While KingGuard’s former attorney indicated steps were being taken to rename the company, KingAlarm says no proof of compliance was ever received.

In affidavits, KingAlarm Managing Director John Azar warned that the public was already being confused, citing customer inquiries believing KingGuard was affiliated with KingAlarm. He further alleged that KingGuard’s uniforms closely resemble those worn by KingAlarm staff, intensifying the risk of confusion.

KingAlarm’s filings noted that the company commands 30–35 per cent of the Jamaican security services market.

In opposing the injunction application, KingGuard argued that the use of the word ‘King’ in its name does not infringe KingAlarm’s trademarks and is not likely to confuse the public.

KingGuard contended that the claim raised no serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured refusing the interim injunction. It relied on the affidavit of Leonie Harvey and challenged allegations of trademark infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act.

KingGuard argued that when assessed as a whole, its name and logo are visually, aurally, and conceptually distinct from KingAlarm’s registered marks. It claimed that the only aural similarity between the brands is the shared prefix ‘King’, which it described as insufficient, on its own, to establish infringement or a likelihood of confusion.

The company maintained that the suffixes ‘Alarm’ and ‘Guard’ create different overall impressions, noting that ‘KingAlarm’ is pronounced with three and ‘KingAlarm Systems’ with five syllables, while ‘KingGuard’ has two. It further argued that the respective logos differ markedly in colour scheme, design, and imagery, with KingGuard’s logo featuring a shield, a knight, and a map of Jamaica, in contrast to KingAlarm’s blue crown design.

Conceptual similarity

KingGuard also disputed claims of conceptual similarity, submitting that while both names may convey ideas of strength or protection, ‘Alarm’ evokes alertness or warning, while ‘Guard’ suggests active protection. It argued that such semantic associations are insufficient to ground a finding of confusion.

On the issue of passing off, KingGuard argued that KingAlarm’s goodwill attaches to the full names ‘KingAlarm’ and ‘KingAlarm Systems’, not to the word ‘King’ alone. It further argued that several KingAlarm trademarks incorporating ‘King’, including ‘AmbuKing’ and ‘KingRescue’, were registered after KingGuard had already begun operating.

KingGuard also denied allegations that its uniforms were ‘virtually identical’ to KingAlarm’s, stating that it provides only unarmed guard services and that its uniforms differ in colour, style, and branding. It argued that similarities in armed-guard attire cited by KingAlarm reflect industry standards among multiple providers and are irrelevant, as KingGuard does not offer armed services.

KingGuard warned that granting an interim injunction would effectively determine the case before trial, forcing it to rebrand an established business built over more than five years. It submitted that such a move would cause disproportionate harm to its goodwill and operations, particularly given its smaller scale compared with KingAlarm.

Despite those arguments, the Supreme Court granted the interim injunction, which will remain in force until trial or further order.

King’s Counsel Daniella Gentles-Silvera and attorneys Kathryn Pearson and Stephen Harvey, instructed by Livingston, Alexander & Levy, represent KingAlarm.

KingGuard’s case is being led by King’s Counsel Patrick Foster and attorney Nathan Dawkins, instructed by Nunes, Scholefield, DeLeon & Co.

editorial@gleanerjm.com