On 2024-09-06, Jon Ribbens <
jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-09-06, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 06/09/2024 00:45, nick wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 16:40:22 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:
Why is there no legal default position that affords the UK business
protection without needing significant financial resources ?
What are the possibilities of some US based scamster simply setting up >>>> loads of companies with UK placenames in their names and then just
counting the money as they sue away ?
https://metro.co.uk/2024/09/05/us-company-threatens-sue-london-business- >>>> brixton-name-21552018
Interestingly, I can't seem to find that story in the printed edition of >>> Metro for 5 Sept but in that same edition I have read a story which came >>> to exactly the opposite conclusion. The printed story doesn't appear to
be on-line but under the title "That's a sticky one! Meghan's jam
trademark denied due to branding" the paper goes on to say that
"American Riviera Orchard has been denied a trademark by the USPTO
precisely because it includes a geographic name.
Is Brixton one of those cases where foreign lawyers come over here to
use the English system to do things they couldn't get away with in the
States or are they sueing in the USA in which case the Brixton folk
ought to quit all this crowdfunding stuff and just tell the Yanks to
go and get stuffed.
Also see here:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8lkl18yy7o>
It would indeed be interesting if Brixton Street Wear could get a
solicitor to do a pro-bono reply of the Arkell vs Pressdram type.
The UK traders will almost certainly lose their trademark in that case. Whether they would be stopped from trading at all is a different matter.
Happily they didn't do that, and they haven't lost their trademark,
and they haven't been stopped from trading:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07k1pxp2v0o
It appears the firms came to a reasonable and amicable agreement.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)