Reply With QuoteIf it is copyrighted then she is open to prosecution.
What is the word?
R
Quick story - my girlfriend has started a small not for profit T Shirt brand and has just had a legal letter (typical bullying format) that she is infinging IP.
She thought long and hard about the branding and there probably isn't any infringement - logos, price point, ethos, ambition etc. all completely differnet just using one word which is, but probably shouldn't have been copyrighted anyway.
If anyone can help - just need to know if they don't really have a case, mediation would work or she has to give up on it/rebrand. We have drafted a response but some legal advice before sending would really help.
Happy to pay or charity donation as preferred.
If it is copyrighted then she is open to prosecution.
What is the word?
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Originally Posted by MB2
It's pretty simple - do you have thousands and thousands of pounds to fight corporate lawyers even if you are entirely right (although you do say 'probably' which suggests you are operating in a grey area). The 'not for profit' aspect by the way is irrelevant.
I recall Joe Lycett did a lot of research on this when he used the Boss brand. Might be worth a quick google.
I think you meant to say "trademarked". Good luck enforcing copyright on a single word unless it's "Jabberwocky" or something.
Some companies pursue on the off chance they can get someone to stop. There was a recent case in the news about Zara going after a shop called Zana and losing.
It does feel a lot like this...
The Trademarked word is a Geographical Location. She has used the same Geographical Location but as part of the branding, she is also using other Geographical Locations with the rest of her branding staying the same - these aren't for sale yet as she made the mistake of starting with the local beach...
Eg Take Time Salcombe and Take Time Broadstairs but the town name is copyrighted for clothing, which the IPO found hard to justify the reasoning for but someone agreed it.
The rest looks nothing like their products and noone could possibly be confused.
In all honesty she would probably make any changes that seemed reasonable had they asked her but this really is sledgehammer to crack a nut stuff.
Don't want to put the actual names in public domain but hopefully that helps.
It's almost certainly not copyrighted. Trademarked, maybe, but not copyrighted. Copyright doesn't apply to trademarks.
If your girlfriend is going to sell clothing with a name on it and you are saying that that name is trademarked for clothing by someone else then it seems to me that she has no chance of succeeding in any dispute.
Unless she is able to license the trademark from its owner and they are willing to license it out, perhaps.
Can't think how anyone could trademark a geographical place unless as part of a specific name so unless her brand name is also similar I would be inclined to ignore.
As for the Zana case, it was fully justified but it was a tough year:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-62462717
I was replying to the OP with the word he used.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Sorry - Trademarked.
The TM part is a local beach name Trade Marked for Clothing & Bags.
Her business is something completlely different eg Take Time
Some of her products (sold in the local area) have on them
Take Time (bold/dominant) and below it the certain beach
If anyone knows this part of the law be happy to PM the actual names/URLs just need to decide quickly what to do but it seems very wrong no-one can possibly sell any clothes or bags with the local area on it - especially when their products are not even sold in the local area !
Why all the cloak and dagger, smoke and mirrors, just tell us the words she's using!
Well I suppose at is subject to a legal challenge it made sense to me to redact the names involved for now ?
We are considering talking with them and possibly reach an amicable agreement but need to know where we stand first ideally.
They have given a deadline of a week to deliver all stock to them, recover any items sold already etc. so are going in very hard.
I'm not a trademark lawyer but surely what you say here is absolutely obvious: From what you say, the beach name is trademarked for clothing and bags and your girlfriend is planning to sell clothes with that beach name on it. Thus she is (or will be) clearly and obviously infringing the trademark owner's trademark.
Sure, it may be absurd that the beach name is trademarked in that way (personally I think it makes no sense for not-privately-owned place names to be trademarked) but, as things stand, selling clothes with someone else's clothing trademark on them without a licence to do so is surely obviously infringing.
Last edited by markrlondon; 21st November 2022 at 15:15.
As I suggested, trying to negotiate a licence (with royalty payments, etc.) might be feasible. Maybe.
This thread would be better in the BP maybe.
As an approach- tell the “big brand” that their brand will be removed from stock by destruction or obliteration and no stock will be sold bearing it.
Then do that - perhaps by means of a pithy over stamping saying “censored by bullies” or words to that effect.
Then go to the Daily Mail or your choice of other media, tell your David vs Goaliath story accompanied by the usual pouting compo face, and enjoy the resulting publicity.
Good plan. :-)
That's guerrilla marketing, isn't it.
From setbacks come opportunities!
It might be work looking at the CITMA site - they do free online advice clinics (CITMA is the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys).
The UKIPO also has a useful website and is worth a look for information on trade marks.
No point arguing with the lawyers, they are defending their turf and will probably not have discretion to reach an agreement. The business owns the trademark and any agreement would be a commercial decision.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
I like your style ;-)
I will make a new thread in the BP with the actual names in case it helps.
Earlier this year Vogue magazine's parent Condé Nast's lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to a 200 year old pub in Cornwall called 'The Star Inn at Vogue'. The pub is in the village of Vogue. And it's a pub! The landlord wrote back, rather politely I'd say, and Condé Nast backed down.
In these cases, my reaction would be too use the 'Arkell v. Pressdram' response - also worth a Google if you are not familiar with the story.
Thanks - a polite reply is probably going to be the first repsonse. As a subscriber to Private Eye I do know, but had fogotten Arkell v. Pressdram...
Posting Permissions
