Friday, August 21, 2009
Perfume trademarks fume celebrities trademarks row
NUDE v. STELLANUDE
Nude Brands Ltd. launched a court infringement action against Stella McCartney Ltd. and others recently. They wanted to stop the launch of a range of perfume products under the trademark STELLANUDE, because the NUDE brand was a registered trademark for similar goods. Celebrities named in the background were Alli Hewson, wife of Bono of U2 fame, and Stella McCartney, of the well-known McCartney clan. The judge, Justice Floyd, would not grant a temporary injunction pending the full hearing at the High Court in London. The fumes continue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of the key attributes of a registered trademark is that it is prima facie evidence, especially in a court context.
ReplyDeleteSo why did the court not grant the injuction?
This is just an interim injunction - they determined that the damage to the defendant if the case were unsuccessful outweighed the damage to the trade mark owner
ReplyDeleteIs this fair to the proprietor of the earlier registered trade mark? The court's refusal to grant an injunction, in effect, weakened the power of a registered trade mark, such that a competitor just has to order larger volumes to make a case to block a claim of likelihood of confusion. They then proceed to launch a similar brand, with the court's blessing. So if you want to launch say STELLA-COCA-COLA, order 5m cases for launch and the court will not injunct you! Ouch for the registered trademark owners rights!
ReplyDeleteCourt's strategy seemed to favour the bigger players here. L'Oreal (UK) was reported to have been one of the parties on the STELLANUDE side. So it is not as if they do not know about trademark rights. The outcome in Court favoured the bigger volumes/sales side, because the launch was "substantial". So the moral of the story seemed to be to for the Court to permit possible infringement/damage to be done on a grand scale, rather than prevent it happening, pending a full hearing. The small guy's registered trademark takes the hit. Does the law favour big business, or is it just a judges interpretation?
ReplyDelete