Posts Tagged ‘England’

boohoo.com v missboo.co.uk

Sunday, November 8th, 2009
Warren J has granted an interim injunction to Wasabi Frog restraining until trial the operation of an online clothing retailer. Wasabi Frog has traded since 2006 as an online retailer of young women's fashion at Boo Hoo and Boohoo.com. It also has CTMs for BOO HOO, BOOHOO.COM and BOO. missboo.co.uk started up in September 2009 as an online retailer of women's fashion, targetting the same demographic: 17 to 25 year olds. His Lordship found a triable issue on likelihood of confusion on the basis of a number of factors. One involved another player in the fashion industry apparently mistaking the applicant for the defendant. Interestingly, another was the inferences to be drawn by traffic that Wasabi Frog generated after purchasing the Google Ad Words "Miss Boo". Other aspects considered included the similarities in the respective companies' websites and the "very very savvy" target markets of both companies. Damages were clearly not an adequate remedy for Wasabi Frog, all the more so as the defendant was impecunious. Wasabi Frog Ltd v Miss Boo Ltd [2009] EWHC 2767 (Ch) Lid dip: Peter A Clarke

Posted in Domain names, Trade marks | Tags: , , , , , , , ,  | View Comments

Procul Harum: paler shade of white afterall

Friday, July 31st, 2009
In its last ever IP judgment, the House of Lords restored Matthew Fisher's claim to a declaration that he owned 40% of the copyright in Whiter Shade of Pale, after the Court of Appeal found his claim barred by delay. IPKat has an extensive post and explanation. As summarised by IPKat, their Lordships focused on the fact that Mr Fisher was seeking a declaration and not an injunction. In doing so, they indicated that the remedy of injunction might well not follow as opposed to damages:

If the declarations set aside by the Court of Appeal are reinstated, then, were Mr Fisher subsequently to apply for injunctive relief to prevent unauthorised use of the work, such an application would be dealt with on its merits. If the court was satisfied that it would be oppressive to grant an injunction in the particular circumstances, for instance because of prejudicial delay, it would refuse an injunction to restrain the infringement, and leave Mr Fisher to his remedy in damages ...

Their Lordships also pointed out that the Copyright legislation, unlike real property, does not recognise a concept of acquisition of property by adverse possession. Fisher v Brooker [2009] UKHL 41 In October, their Lordships (?) return as members of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: Wikipedia here and Lord Bingham  here (pdf).

Posted in Copyright | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  | View Comments