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.
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...Originally Posted by bloater
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.
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.
As I suggested, trying to negotiate a licence (with royalty payments, etc.) might be feasible. Maybe.
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.
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote