Brand clash blindsides Thomas Skinner as Bosch fights catchphrase plan for new line

Thomas Skinner, the Essex businessman and former Apprentice contestant who later joined Strictly Come Dancing, has been blocked from naming a new business after his long-running catchphrase “Bosh” following a legal move by Bosch, the German electrical giant behind the trademark.

According to reports, Bosch took action to prevent Skinner from launching a bedding and candle brand under the “Bosh” label, arguing the similarities in name risked infringing its trademark and could confuse consumers. A source cited by The Sun said Skinner had “huge plans” for the name and intended to attach it to multiple ventures, but that the company’s lawyers moved quickly as Skinner’s profile grew. The Sun noted that a tribunal forced Skinner to back down, with claims that he was “powerless to stop it.”

Skinner’s troubles arrive amid a broader public storm surrounding the former reality TV participant. He rose to notoriety after his run on The Apprentice in 2019 and later became a familiar face on Strictly Come Dancing, where he publicly embraced his signature phrase and used it in promotional posts. His announcement of joining Strictly included a quip that he would bring “the BOSH to the ballroom,” a line that has remained closely associated with his public persona. The framing of the legal challenge centers on the potential for consumer confusion between his brand and Bosch’s established trademark.

The details of the legal action come as Skinner has faced personal and professional scrutiny. The Sun’s reporting cites a source describing the tribunal outcome and the restrictions on using the Bosh brand. The Daily Mail, which has said it has sought comment from Skinner’s representatives, has reported on the broader arc of his career and public controversies.

Beyond the branding dispute, Skinner’s public life has been marked by a highly publicized cheating admission. The notes describe an episode from around the time of his 2022 wedding, in which he acknowledged a relationship with another woman that persisted for a period afterward. The accounts include conflicting characterizations of the affair: one source described a two-week fling, while others claimed the relationship lasted up to three months. Skinner has publicly framed the event as a moment of error but has continued to defend his marriage and his work ethic. The Daily Mail notes that his former partner suggested the liaison lasted longer, while Skinner asserted that his wife forgave him and that they had moved forward.

The controversy also intersected with Skinner’s political leanings, which have drawn criticism on social media. He was photographed at a barbecue event hosted by JD Vance, described by some outlets as a once-in-a-lifetime appearance, a moment that sparked debate among followers. Skinner later described the appearance as a highlight but pushed back against critics who argued that his public posts drifted into the political arena. He has continued to defend his choices and reputation on social media, arguing that he is under attack from anonymous accounts and insisting that the public should assess his work and the person he is today.

In the lead-up to his first Strictly appearance with partner Amy Dowden, Skinner has maintained that he will not be cancelled and that his marriage remains strong. In a long post on X, he described facing heavy scrutiny, saying that he would bounce back stronger after a period of “attacks” and online abuse. He asserted that his work ethic—harking back to days when he slept on a pull-out bed and built himself up from scratch—remains the core of his public identity. While he acknowledged missteps, he framed his trajectory as one of “graft” and resilience, appealing to supporters to judge him by his actions rather than the noise around him.

The Bosch decision adds a separate legal dimension to Skinner’s public path, potentially limiting a core branding element that he had signaled would anchor multiple business ventures. It arrives as he continues to navigate a high-profile career that includes appearances on reality television and a contentious personal narrative. Representatives for Skinner have not provided public comment on the branding dispute, and Bosch has not publicly commented beyond its position on trademark protection.

Taken together, the episode illustrates the volatility that can accompany fame in the era of social media and reality television. For Skinner, the immediate impact is a stiff legal reminder that success in one arena—reaching audiences through entertainment and catchphrases—does not automatically translate into unimpeded business branding. For Bosch, the case underscores the boundaries of trademark protection when consumer perception could be shaped by similarly worded phrases, even when used by a celebrity tied to a popular show. As Skinner continues to pursue opportunities in entertainment and entrepreneurship, observers will watch whether any future ventures rebrand away from the contested term or surface alternative branding that avoids legal conflict.