Online fashion and beauty retailer Asos, previously
known as As Seen On Screen, is paying over £20 million to
cycle wear manufacturer Assos of Switzerland and German menswear
retailer, Anson's Herrenhaus, to settle ongoing trade mark
disputes between the companies.
From a UK perspective, it might seem surprising that Asos is
making such a payment, which amounts to approximately 30% of the
retailer's latest reported annual continuing profits before tax
and exceptional items, being £63.7 million to 31 August 2016.
In this jurisdiction, just 18 months ago,
Asos successfully defended an infringement action brought by
The Guardian reports, however, that Asos was also dealing with
cases in the US, Germany and France. The settlement is a full,
final and global one covering all outstanding litigation and trade
mark registry actions.
The Telegraph reports other details from the settlement. Asos
will be entitled to sell Asos-branded sportswear, although not
cycle wear. The Guardian adds that Asos will not be allowed to open
shops in Germany. This may not be much of a limitation in practice:
to date, Asos' physical store presence has been very limited,
for example in Australia in 2012 the retailer launched pop up
stores to promote a country-specific range. Being able to sell
own-brand sportswear, on the other hand, could be valuable. The
sportswear market in the UK alone is valued at around £6
billion a year.
Second, even in the UK, Asos may have felt vulnerable to further
allegations of trade mark infringement, despite the Court of Appeal
judgment in its favour. Asos won the UK action on the basis
of the own name defence, which provides that an EU trade mark owner
cannot prevent a third party from using his own name or address in
the course of trade, provided that he uses them in accordance with
honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.
Since the decision, however, amendments to
the EU Trade Mark Regulation have taken effect. One of the
changes is that companies can no longer benefit from the own name
defence; it is now only available to natural persons. It is an open
question as to how this will affect corporate defendants who have
built up brands in reliance on the defence, prior to the change,
but on the face of it there must have been at least a risk of a
fresh action against Asos now that its defence has fallen away.
It appears that Asos has decided that the certainty that it
could achieve via settlement was worth the significant short-term
financial hit, particularly perhaps with Assos of Switzerland due
any day to launch its first shop in the UK - a flagship
"experience concept" store in central London.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
We will start the morning looking at developments in the two years since the introduction of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. We will go through some of the key themes and issues which have arisen on the new rules, including post-contract variations; the new Selection Questionnaire; incomplete submission of bids; and (of course) Brexit.
Next, our experts will look at procurement challenges/disputes, in particular issues such as standing to bring a claim, disclosure of documents and current trends, in light of recent case law including EnergySolutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
We will finish with a practical workshop where we will invite attendees to consider and discuss various public procurement issues. We will draw on experience from within the room to identify pragmatic solutions to sometimes very difficult situations.
The focus on the product being obvious or anticipated as at a certain date provides powerful protection and commercial certainty without conflicting with a patentee's ability to obtain patent protection.
The High Court considered a claim by Azumi, the owner of high-end Japanese restaurant Zuma against Zuma's Choice Pet Products Limited (ZCPP) and its director Zoe Vanderbilt for trade mark infringement.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).