Wrigley Claydon Solicitors

Category: Litigation & Disputes

  • Airbnb threatens legal action against Scots firm Hairbnb in trademark row

    Airbnb has threatened legal action against a Scots firm named Hairbnb, which offers holiday homes for dogs. It connects licensed dog sitters, boarders and walkers with people who need their pets looked after.

    Allan Ritchie set up the dog boarding business in 2018 and applied for a trademark from the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO).

    Airbnb were given two months to object, starting from February 2018. Airbnb didn’t take any action and Mr Ritchie was given a UK trademark in May 2018.

    However, Mr Ritchie has now been sent a “cease and desist” letter from Airbnb, which has given him until the end of June 2019 to change the trademark.  

    An Airbnb spokesman said: “We want to work in partnership with companies to address these matters and hope to collaborate to resolve concerns amicably.”

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business.  Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

    Click here to find out more about Civil Litigation
    Click here to find out more about Dispute Resolution
    Click here to find out more about Commercial Litigation
    Click here to find out more about Intellectual Property Solicitors

  • An Australian shoe company has been ordered to pay $450,000 to Deckers, the maker of the UGG boot

    Australian Leather, an Australian shoe company has been ordered to pay $450,000 to Deckers, the maker of the UGG boot.

    A jury for the US District Court found 12 pairs of sheepskin-lined boots sold by Australian Leather infringed US-based Decker’s ‘UGG’ trademarks.

    Deckers first filed an action against Australian Leather in 2016, asking the US court to limit the sales of Australian Leather’s boots to Australia and New Zealand so as to not cause consumer confusion in the US.

    Australian Leather argued “ugg” is a generic term origination in Australia from the 1960s surfing community, but this argument was rejected by the court.

    Additionally, Deckers also alleged Australian Leather had infringed four of its design patents. The verdict on whether Australian Leather infringed the design patents will be decided in a separate non-jury trial.

    In December 2018, Deckers took action against alleged online counterfeiters in China for selling fake UGG boots. It said the counterfeiters ran online stores designed to appear as authorised sellers. Deckers sought an injunction against the companies and $2 million for each use of the UGG trademark.

     

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

    Click here to find out more about Civil Litigation
    Click here to find out more about Dispute Resolution
    Click here to find out more about Commercial Litigation
    Click here to find out more about Intellectual Property Solicitors

  • Iceland (The Country) Wins Trademark Dispute Against Iceland (The Supermarket)

    The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has invalidated the UK-based supermarket chain Iceland Foods Ltd EU-wide trademark for the word “Iceland” in 2014. It may not register a trademark on the word “Iceland” within the European Union following the Icelandic authorities who sued to have invalidated on the basis of being far too broad and creating a monopoly that prevented Icelandic companies from registering their products with reference to their country of origin.

     

    The EUIPO noted that “It has been adequately shown that consumers in EU countries know that Iceland is a country in Europe and also that the country has historical and economic ties to EU countries, in addition to geographic proximity.”

    Iceland Foods Ltd. has two months to appeal the ruling.

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

    Click here to find out more about Civil Litigation
    Click here to find out more about Dispute Resolution
    Click here to find out more about Commercial Litigation
    Click here to find out more about Intellectual Property Solicitors

  • Scotch whisky brand Glenfiddich loses trademark battle with Indian firm

    William Grant & Sons the makers of Glenfiddich has lost a legal battle against an Indian firm, producing a Scotch whisky named Glenfield after it accused it of copying its brand.

    William Grant & Sons tried to block Glenfield’s attempts to trademark the whisky, saying it uses the same green and gold colours and stag on its packaging stating that the similarity between the names could lead people to confuse the two products. It argued that Glenfield could benefit from this confusion and wanted the application to be blocked.

    But the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which rules on trademark disputes, found in Glenfield’s favour, saying consumers were unlikely to confuse the two whiskies.

    The IPO said: ‘Other than the common occurrence of glen, meaning “a narrow valley, especially in Scotland or Ireland”, the respective marks have no conceptual similarity.’

    It also said that while both labels featured stags, the fact that Glenfiddich shows one animal and Glenfield shows two was ‘unlikely to go unnoticed’.

    While the colours of both labels were similar, the IPO said ‘the differences outweigh the similarities and the applicant’s mark will do no more than bring the opponent’s mark fleetingly to mind. Therefore, there is insufficient similarity for a misrepresentation to occur’.

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

    Click here to find out more about Civil Litigation
    Click here to find out more about Dispute Resolution
    Click here to find out more about Commercial Litigation
    Click here to find out more about Intellectual Property Solicitors

  • The UKIPO rejects Kellogg’s trade mark opposition

    The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has rejected a trademark opposition brought by the Kellogg Company against British brewery Fuller’s.

     

    In June 2018, Kellogg’s filed an opposition to Fuller’s ‘Fruit Loop’ mark for a seasonal summer beer, which Kellogg’s claimed infringed its EU trademark for its breakfast cereal brand Froot Loops.

    Kellogg’s claimed that the Fuller’s mark would benefit from Kellogg’s reputation and also damage the brand by its use in connection with an alcoholic drink.

    Fuller’s argued that the two products had little in common in terms of taste or flavour, and that cereal products and beer were unlikely to be placed near each other in shops.

    The UKIPO was found that Kellogg’s had failed to demonstrate the reputation of its ‘Froot Loops’ brand in the UK and also failed to provide sales figures for the UK. .

    The UKIPO also found that the marks were similar to a low degree, taking into account the other elements in Fuller’s mark, including the words ‘Tropical fruit pale ale’ and the alcohol content label.

    The UKIPO awarded costs of £2,400 to Fuller’s.

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

    Click here to find out more about Civil Litigation
    Click here to find out more about Dispute Resolution
    Click here to find out more about Commercial Litigation
    Click here to find out more about Intellectual Property Solicitors

  • High Court employs ‘intention to target’ approach to determine application of EU/UK law in online trade mark infringement case

    The High Court recently issued a judgment concerning determination of the law applicable to online trade mark infringements in the case of Easygroup Ltd v Easy Fly Express Ltd & Chowdhury.

    The Claimant, easyGroup is the proprietor of the word mark EASYJET and the word easyFlights. The two Defendants’, Mr Chowdhury and his company Easy Fly, both based in Bangladesh, are the holders of the domain www.easyfly-express.com from which Easy Fly’s services were marketed.

    easyGroup claimed that the Defendants’ use of the signs amounted to infringement of its registered trademarks, as well as passing off.

    In order to qualify as an infringement of a UK or EU trade mark, the use of the Defendants’ sign must essentially be targeted at an UK audience or at somewhere in the EU.

    easyGroup argued that the Defendants would target the UK and the EU by noting that the Defendants’ website and Facebook page were in English. The judge however, found that English is widely spoken in Bangladesh is the dominant language used on websites globally. The Defendants also established that there were no UK or EU contact details on their website or social media platforms.

    Furthermore, by typing in the words “cargo flight Bangladesh” on Google Search, the Defendants’ website showed up as the second hit. However, there was nothing to suggest that the service targeted the UK or Europe since the Google search included the country “Bangladesh”.

    In light of the above there was nothing to suggest that a UK or EU consumer was targeted by the Defendants’ services. The only other factor relied upon by easyGroup as supporting a conclusion to the contrary was the resemblance between the defendant’s signs and easyGroup’s trademarks.

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

  • Marc Jacobs Wants Nirvana’s Copyright Lawsuit Dismissed

    Lawyers for fashion designer Marc Jacobs have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit made against him by the estate of the band Nirvana, which accuses him of copyright infringement.

    The designer’s collection features a cartoon “smiley face” similar to the one used by Nirvana as their logo, along with the word “Heaven” printed in the distinctive typeface used by the band. The lawsuit argues that Jacobs intentionally used “Nirvana’s copyrighted image on and to promote its products” in an “oppressive, fraudulent and malicious” manner. It seeks damages and for the clothes to be removed from sale.

    Jacobs admits the designs were “inspired by vintage Nirvana concert T-shirts from the 1990s”, but argues that Jacobs “reinterpreted the design to incorporate [a Marc Jacobs] branding element into an otherwise commonplace image”.

    The motion centres on a technicality: while Nirvana do own copyright to similar artwork, it is for an entire T-shirt design with a smiley face, the word Nirvana, and the words “flower sniffin kitty pettin baby kissin corporate rock whores” written on the back. By replacing the smiley face’s crosses for eyes with the letters M and J, and the word Nirvana with Heaven, Jacobs’ motion argues that the design therefore does not infringe copyright as it is not an exact replica of the copyrighted Nirvana design.

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

    For more information on Civil Litigation, click here.
    For more information on Dispute Resolution, click here.
    For more information on Commercial Litigation, click here.
    For more information on Intellectual Property, click here.

  • Aberdeen FC loses trademark battle over ‘Dons Dram’ whisky

    Aberdeen FC have lost a court battle with a Spanish sherry-maker, Sandeman over the right to call their brand of Scotch whisky the ‘Dons Dram’ – because Sandeman owns the copyright.

    Aberdeen FC, nicknamed The Dons, launched the blended whisky and applied to register the name Dons Dram as a trademark to protect its brand, however, Sandeman objected.

    Sandeman produce a Spanish sherry called ‘Don Fino’ and their lawyers said the application overlapped with their registered trademark and people could confuse the two businesses. They claimed that Aberdeen could benefit from this confusion, and called for their application to be blocked.

    The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO), who rule on trademark disputes, found in Sandeman’s favour after ruling that the vast majority of the public wouldn’t be aware of Aberdeen’s nickname.

    Aberdeen FC have been ordered to pay Sandeman £1,500 in legal costs following the conclusion of the hearing.

    The ruling means Aberdeen FC will have to change the name of their whisky or apply to Sandeman for permission to use it.

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

    For more information on Civil Litigation, click here.
    For more information on Dispute Resolution, click here.
    For more information on Commercial Litigation, click here.
    For more information on Intellectual Property, click here.

  • Janelle Monáe accused by fashion designer of wearing ‘copied’ outfit

    Nange Magro, a London-based fashion designer has said her costume designs have been plagiarised for Janelle Monáe’s recent Grammy awards performance.

    Magro posted images on Instagram comparing designs she made in 2015 with those worn by Monáe on stage at the Grammys. She said “ I am flattered to be an inspiration for this amazing artist, but not flattered that my original design has been blatantly imitated.”

    In 2016, Moschino designer Jeremy Scott made an undisclosed settlement with graffiti artist Joseph Tierney, after Tierney accused him of plagiarising one of his artworks for a dress worn by Katy Perry to the 2015 Met Gala.

    In March 2018, Vivienne Westwood apologised to fellow fashion designers Louise Gray and Rottingdean Bazaar after she imitated one of their designs, saying: “We are sorry. The use of your graphics on our T-shirt was only ever meant to be a celebration of your work.”

    Suffering an intellectual property and technology disputes can have serious implications on your business. Our business solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

  • Monica Allen, whose mother tried to kill her twice, has won the right to claim criminal injuries compensation

    Monica Allen, whose mother tried to kill her twice, has won the right to claim criminal injuries compensation

    Monica Allen, whose mother tried to kill her twice, has won the right to claim criminal injuries compensation in a landmark victory in the Supreme Court against the UK government after fighting what was known as the “same roof” rule.

    The same roof rule meant victims of crime were ineligible for pay-outs if they lived under the same roof as the perpetrator.

    When Mrs Allan was five years old, her mother tried to strangle her. Her mother was charged with attempted murder and jailed in 1976. Mrs Allan was then brought up in foster care.

    As an adult, Mrs Allan was told she could not claim the criminal injuries compensation other victims were entitled to because the crime had happened before 1979.

    Until then, any victim of violence by a member of their own family could not be compensated if they had been living under the same roof.

    The rule was intended to ensure that perpetrators would not benefit from the compensation paid to the victims they lived with.

    This was changed in 1979 so that child victims of domestic crimes could claim compensation. However, the change was not applied retrospectively.

    Mrs Allan believed her human rights were being breached because she was being deprived of support under an “unfair” rule that dismissed entitlement to compensation for injuries caused by someone within the same family.

    The courts have now recognised that it is discriminatory to prevent people from claiming compensation because of the same roof rule which could allow the door to be open to hundreds of others across the country.

    If you have been the victim of a crime of violence, for example if someone has assaulted you, then you can claim. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our Personal Injury department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.

    Click here to find out more about Injury Solicitors
    Click here to find out more about Criminal Injuries