CLASS 99
The blog for design law, in Europe and worldwide. This weblog is written by a team of design experts and fans. To contribute, or join us, or for any other reason, email class99@marques.org.
Want to receive Class 99 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.
Click here subscribe for free.
Who we all are...
MONDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2010
Aspinal tapped ...
An excited press release from Anti Copying in Design (ACID) tells Class 99 that one of its members, Aspinal of London, has secured a settlement after a long battle against
Following a £1.5 million battle the defendants have agreed not to trade in any capacity in the leather goods business for 10 years and to pass over all their assets, including all the stock and their entire business, to Aspinal. The case was described as being one of the most complex cases to come before the London Patents Court in fifty years.
The culprits were apparently individuals with whom Aspinal had trustingly shared an office and warehouse premises. Explains the press release,
Frustratingly, under the settlement the defendants are entitled to anonymity. This however has the consolation that we can say as many rude things about them as we want and they can't sue for defamation ... Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 21.02
Tags: settlement,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA182
Aspinal tapped ...
 |
| A free Libertine with every handbag? |
"copycat predators who marched off with their products, mimicked their website and shamelessly created a look alike business, free riding on the back of Aspinal’s hard- fought- for brand identity and reputation".
The culprits were apparently individuals with whom Aspinal had trustingly shared an office and warehouse premises. Explains the press release,
"Without warning, they vacated the shared premises and promptly set about to manufacture a wide range of more than 100 designs, copying or mimicking Aspinal’s entire range of products and designs, the Aspinal “ look and feel” and the entire Aspinal business model. The case against the defendants was pursued in two parts. The first was breach [the pedant in me says "infringement", not "breach"] of copyright, Community [something] rights, registered designs and unregistered designs. The second was a case of common law tort, including the misuse of confidential information and inducement of Aspinal’s manufacturers to breach their agreements and exclusivity".This episode carries with it a salutary warning that design infringement can break out any time, any place -- and if the infringer is going to do it, he may as well do it at full volume and in full view of everyone since he will cause maximum inconvenience and put greater pressure on the lawful trader off whose business he parasitically feeds.
Frustratingly, under the settlement the defendants are entitled to anonymity. This however has the consolation that we can say as many rude things about them as we want and they can't sue for defamation ... Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 21.02
Tags: settlement,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA182
MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.
The Class 99 Archive
