• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy
  • Home
  • About
  • Posts
  • Blogs
    • B2022
    • The IP Blog
    • Public Law & Regulation
    • AI
    • The UPC Blog

LoupedIn

Good news / BAD news – June 2022

Published on June 8, 2022 by John Coldham, Zoe Pearman and Grace Evans

Good news / BAD news – June 2022

Welcome to the second edition of the “Good News / BAD News” Blog!

Our BAD Team (that is, our Brands, Advertising and Designs Team) serves as trusted advisers to some of the most valuable brands in the world and we wanted to share our recent experiences in the hope of helping brand owners navigate the ever-changing landscape. 

We note that the Courts have been pretty busy this quarter, so we thought it would be helpful to highlight some key cases and some other matters that we have seen recently and believe brand owners should be aware of. 

So keep on reading for some of the things we think you should know about right now…

Oh why

We couldn’t not mention Ed Sheeran’s highly publicised High Court battle over his 2017 hit “Shape of You” – especially as our very own Kate Swaine was on the BBC News discussing the case!

In summary, lawyers for Sam Chokri (who performs as Sami Switch) and his “Oh Why” co-writer Ross O’Donoghue argued that Sheeran’s “Oh I” hook was strikingly similar to their “Oh Why” hook. The High Court, however, found in favour of Sheeran and found that any similarities in it were not enough. The decision highlights, again, that copyright infringement involves taking a “substantial part” of the original work; there are often notes or phrases that find their way from one piece of music to another, and often there is little to complain about when it happens. 

An important lesson for brand owners, in relation to copyright generally, is to ensure you document your creative process – that way, if you ever need to assert copyright or ever face allegations of copyright and need to prove you didn’t copy: you have a design story and can prove how your idea originated.

Our comments on this case have been published in the mainstream media, including BBC News and City AM.

Swipe right

We mentioned in last quarter’s blog that recently there have been a number of public disputes, which brand owners have been following. For example, Vogue were forced to publicly apologise to “The Star Inn at Vogue” pub in Cornwall after they asked the pub to change its name and later said after “further research” it “did not need to send such a letter on this occasion“.

Another dispute that made its way into the mainstream press was the recent decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court concerning a battle of dating sites and apps: Match Group (the dating giant behind Tinder, Hinge and Match.com) v. Muzmatch (the world’s largest Muslim dating and marriage app). 

As Jasmine Lalli explains in her article, Match was successful in its allegation that Muzmatch had infringed its “MATCH.COM” trade mark and found Muzmatch was taking unfair advantage of the “MATCH.COM” mark.  Muzzmatch has now rebranded to “Muzz”

The decision was picked up by The Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Metro, etc. and serves as a useful reminder that dispute may be posted and reported in the media. The PR impact this may have on your brand should not be underestimated.

We are frequently advising clients on the importance of considering the PR and social media impact of taking legal steps.  These are just one consideration – and can often be a positive one – that should be factored into a brand enforcement strategy.

“More tailored to the British taste“

The recent decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court concerns a dispute between the “China Tang” restaurant in the Dorchester frequented by the likes of Kate Moss, Tony Blair and Naomi Campbell and a Chinese takeaway in Barrow-in-Furness of the same name (which the judgment describes as “Chinese fast food tailored to the British taste“).

The judge found in favour of the Dorchester based restaurant. The Barrow-in-Furness takeaway sought to rely on the defence of honest concurrent use, on the basis that when it started trading in 2009 it was not aware of the restaurant in the Dorchester. The judge, however, concluded that they ought to have known and that “in the modern climate of easy trade mark and internet searches… if a party starts to use a trading name without appropriate advice and simple searches, such use will not have been honest concurrent use without some reason.” 

The decision makes it clear that brand owners of any size should undertake trade mark and/or internet clearance searches for competitors using the same or similar brand names.

This case also highlights the high threshold for claimants seeking to rely on the extra protection afforded to a trade mark with reputation. The Dorchester restaurant did not show sufficient knowledge of their business among the relevant public (which, for restaurant services, was found to be “almost every adult and child in the UK”).

“They’re taking the pistachio“

Tesco Mobile have recently fallen foul of the advertising code rules and had a number of their adverts banned. Complaints were made to the Advertising Standards Authority (the “ASA“) that adverts for Tesco Mobile in newspapers, on social media and outdoor posters were offensive. The adverts in question included straplines such as: “What a load of shiitake”, “They’re taking the pistachio” and “For fettucine’s sake“.

The ASA upheld the complaints, finding that the words “shiitake” and “pistachio” in particular alluded to words that were “so likely to offend that they should not generally be used or alluded to in advertising, regardless of whether they were used in a tongue-in-cheek manner.” The reveal of one of the “fettucine” executions (where the phrase “For f sake” was shown, before revealing the word “fettucine”) was also held as offensive. 

Brand owners, therefore, should be aware that the ASA remains quite conservative (especially when it comes to swear words and allusions to them) and should be careful to ensure straplines used in a humorous or tongue-in-cheek manner are not likely to cause offence. This is in contrast to well-known court decisions, such as the infamous case where Ryanair was allowed to call British Airways “Expensive BA****ds”.   

Welcome to the virtual world

Firstly, what is the metaverse? It is a shared, immersive environment that allows people to interact with each other and objects in a virtual world (think: a 3D version of the internet; where rather than simply looking at 2D pages, you will be able to “step in” to the metaverse and immerse yourself in a virtual world). 

We are excited about the opportunities that the metaverse holds for brands! Brand owners can allow consumers to interact with a brand in a way that simply hasn’t been possible before: for example, they can innovate and create digital products without any physical constraints, or they can use the metaverse to showcase and advertise new products. For example, Gucci and adidas bought land in The Sandbox and built virtual showcases for their products.

However, the metaverse also gives rise to a number of possibilities for infringement. We mentioned in our last blog that Hermès commenced proceedings against the MetaBirkins for infringement of both its word trade mark “BIRKIN” and its three-dimensional trade mark protecting the Birkin bag. It is clear that a robust IP strategy would see brand owners consider taking steps to protect their rights in the metaverse.

To find out more, our global IP practice have prepared a couple of excellent articles (see here and here).

Team news

We are absolutely thrilled that we have been shortlisted in eight (yes eight!) categories in the Managing Intellectual Property EMEA awards, including the Global IP Firm of the Year, Trade Mark Contentious Firm of the Year and Designs Firm of the Year (we have won the award the last three years running, so are flattered even to be nominated again for that one!).

In other team news:

  • A number of our team recently attended the first in person INTA conference for a few years in Washington DC. It was lovely to catch up with colleagues and friends from around the world. 
  • Rob MacDonald, former co-head of the global IP practice, was recently presented with a Lifetime Achievement Award by Managing IP. Congratulations Rob!
Congratulations Rob!
  • Our team were champions of the CITMA Quiz which took place at Salsa! in April. Thanks to CITMA for another great event.
CITMA Quiz champions!
  • Finally, as you may know, we are the official legal advisors for the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games, working with the Games on all legal aspects. In particular our BAD team are entirely responsible for the brand protection at the Games, which take place in July. A day in the office was brightened up by a visit from the B2022 mascot, Perry.

About the author(s)

Photo of John Coldham
John Coldham
View John's profile | See recent posts

John Coldham is UK Head of Brands and Designs, and co-heads the global practice. The Team is MIP Designs Firm of the Year 2021, having also won the award in 2019 and 2020. It is the first firm ever to win the award three years in a row.

  • John Coldham
    https://loupedin.blog/author/johncoldham/
    Colin vs Cuthbert: M&S to sue Aldi for trademark infringement
  • John Coldham
    https://loupedin.blog/author/johncoldham/
    Aldi's Cuthbert the Caterpillar returns - with a slight change
  • John Coldham
    https://loupedin.blog/author/johncoldham/
    Protective over purple: Can you trade mark a colour?
  • John Coldham
    https://loupedin.blog/author/johncoldham/
    M&S sues Aldi for IP infringement - again
Photo of Zoe Pearman
Zoe Pearman
View profile | See recent posts

Zoe Pearman is an associate with experience in trademarks, designs, copyright and advertising.

  • Zoe Pearman
    https://loupedin.blog/author/zoepearman/
    Good news / BAD news
  • Zoe Pearman
    https://loupedin.blog/author/zoepearman/
    Good news / BAD news - February 2023
Photo of Grace Evans
Grace Evans
View profile | See recent posts

Grace Evans is a trainee solicitor at Gowling WLG.

  • Grace Evans
    https://loupedin.blog/author/graceevans/
    Good news / BAD news

John Coldham, Zoe Pearman and Grace Evans

Filed Under: Analysis, Intellectual Property, News Tagged With: brand protection, Brands and designs, Intellectual Property, Trademarks

Views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect those of Gowling WLG.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • MIPIM 2023: Key topics shaping the future of real estate
  • Climate change – New report highlights areas for scaling up action
  • Transferring data out of China? Understand the key points from the Chinese Standard Contractual Clauses

Tags

apprenticeships (5) Artificial Intelligence (AI) (52) Autonomous vehicles (11) b2022 (18) Birmingham 2022 (8) Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games (14) brand protection (5) Brexit (23) china (5) Climate change (13) COP26 (11) COP27 (6) Copyright (8) COVID-19 (23) Cyber security (5) Data protection (6) Employment (13) employment law (9) Environment (8) ESG (21) ESG and pensions (9) financial services (5) Intellectual Property (59) IP (9) Life sciences (6) net zero (6) Patents (28) Pensions (41) Pension scams (5) Pension Schemes Act 2021 (11) Pensions dashboards (7) Pensions in 2022 (10) Pensions law (31) Procurement (7) Public Law & Regulation (39) Real Estate (17) Retail (6) sustainability (7) Tech (45) The Week In Pensions (11) Trademarks (13) UK (15) unified patents court (9) UPC (24) Week in HR (8)

Categories

Archives

Gowling WLG is an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.

Footer

LoupedIn is the Official Gowling WLG Blog. Gowling WLG is an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.

  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy

© 2023 Gowling WLG

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT