Battle royale

A high-stakes legal clash has erupted in the private security sector, as industry giant KingAlarm Services Limited takes legal action to stop a Montego Bay-based rival, KingGuard Security Services Limited, from using the word ‘King’ in its branding.

KingAlarm, one of Jamaica’s largest private security providers, filed a lawsuit on March 19, 2025, seeking an injunction to prevent KingGuard from continuing to operate under its current name. The company contends that KingGuard’s branding poses a serious risk of “grave financial and reputational damage” and infringes its intellectual property.

The lawsuit, filed in the Supreme Court by attorneys from Livingston, Alexander & Levy, accuses KingGuard of violating multiple registered trade marks and engaging in “passing off” – a legal term that prevents businesses from misleadingly presenting their goods or services as those of another.

“The claimant will suffer grave financial and reputational damage and loss of goodwill should the defendant not be restrained, and such damage will be difficult if not impossible to assess,” KingAlarm argued in its filings.

KingAlarm is seeking an interim injunction to halt KingGuard’s operations under that name until the matter is resolved in court. The company warns that, unless restrained, KingGuard “will continue the acts of infringement.”

KingGuard, incorporated in January 2020, has yet to file a defence but has formally acknowledged receipt of the lawsuit. Its director and shareholder, Leonie Harvey, declined to comment when contacted by The Sunday Gleaner on April 17. The company is represented by attorney Nathan Dawkins of Nunes, Scholefield, DeLeon & Co.

Founded in 1999 and based in St Andrew, KingAlarm claims exclusive rights to several registered trade marks, including “KINGALARM,” and “KINGALARM SYSTEMS & Logo”. It is also the registered owner of the “AMBUKING” and “AMBUKING LOGO” marks, used in ambulance and emergency response services. The company claims the unregistered mark “KING”. The company also claims common law rights to the unregistered mark “KINGTRACKER”, used in GPS and tracking solutions.

“The claimant has built up and owns valuable goodwill in the KingAlarm and KingTracker trade marks, such that the name ‘KING’ in relation to the security industry … is synonymous with the claimant and exclusively associated with the claimant,” the lawsuit said. “Therefore, when used in association with the provision of security services, the name ‘KING’ is assumed to indicate security services offered by the claimant and none other.”

Services mirror KingAlarm’s offerings

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

According to KingAlarm’s filings, it sent a cease-and-desist letter to KingGuard on November 17, 2024, demanding the removal of the word “King” from its name, marketing, uniforms, and promotions. KingGuard’s then-attorney, Noel Donaldson, responded on November 25, stating that steps were being taken to change the company name.

KingGuard’s then-attorney Noel Donaldson replied on November 25, saying that Harvey had instructed him to indicate that “steps are being taken to make adjustments to our company’s name”, according to KingAlarm’s filings.

Azar said Donaldson advised on December 4 that he was no longer representing KingGuard.

KingAlarm’s attorneys wrote back to KingGuard on December 11, saying their client was “pleased” that the issue could be “quickly and amicably” resolved. But they said the company never received proof of the promised name change.

In its court filings, KingAlarm alleged that KingGuard’s use of the name is “likely to deceive or confuse the public” and violates Section 9(3)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, which addresses the use of similar signs to provide similar services under a registered mark.

“The defendant’s use of the word ‘king’ takes unfair advantage of and/or is detrimental to the distinctive character and reputation which the claimant has built in its KingAlarm trade marks,” the company argued, calling the conduct a “grave threat” to its brand and business.

The company claims to hold 30-35 per cent of the security services market and says its guard operations alone accounted for $9.4 billion, or 79 per cent, of total revenue in 2024.

In an affidavit supporting the application for the interim injunction, KingAlarm Managing Director John Azar said KingAlarm has invested heavily in building brand recognition, including spending $202 million over the last decade in advertising and promotions. The company’s annual turnover over the same period, he said, has exceeded $51 billion.

Azar said KingAlarm currently serves more than 12,000 locations, employs over 4,500 workers (4,000 of whom are security guards), and is the largest electronic security monitoring company in the Caribbean. Its clients include several government ministries and agencies, embassies, and at least one major hotel chain.

KingAlarm says its uniforms, over 300 vehicles, billboards, storefront signage, and social media presence are branded with its trade marks, making them instantly recognisable across Jamaica, particularly in Kingston, Montego Bay, and Mandeville.

Confusion has

already started

The company alleges that confusion has already started. Since November 2024, it claims to have received phone calls from customers and members of the public inquiring about KingGuard’s services “under the belief” that the company was affiliated with KingAlarm.

It also said KingGuard’s uniforms for its guards are “virtually identical” to those worn by KingAlarm staff, further amplifying the risk of confusion.

According to Azar, the company’s 2023 audited financials show net profits of $200 million and total assets exceeding $6 billion, making KingAlarm financially capable of compensating KingGuard should the injunction later prove unjustified.

Azar said his attorneys have said a trial is not likely before 2026, and if KingGuard continues to operate under the disputed name, the damage to its reputation, goodwill, and market share could be irreparable.

editorial@gleanerjm.com