Help!! need advice! Being accused of Intellectual Property Infringement rights

[leilani]

Hi peeps, here we go again. Every year there seems to be something, even though been trying to keep my head down low!

 

So I need some advice.

 

Last year (1 year 7 months ago) I purchased a domain for a potential get back "into work business", I purchased the domain name based on personal experience and the service provided. I checked IP search and at the time there was "no trademark" nor application for one. I had no trouble securing the domain I wanted.

 

Upon developing the website I noticed another website with a similar plural version of my domain name although a different TLD. The website was not providing the same service but providing a connection between people such as myself and those who wanted people such as myself. A portal.

 

Plural and Singular domains often coexist, and as our services were different although in similar area, I didn't think anything more of it.

 

End of this May, I received a personal email basically telling me I had infringed on their IP due to complaint/confusions, that I set up the website in "bad faith" claiming I am "passing off" against their name and threatening court which will be extremely costly to me.

 

I responded immediately, reasons I was denying this claim and that this claim appeared to be an attempt at "reverse domain name hijacking". Nonetheless, I offered a compromise of a disclaimer, and if this was not acceptable to consider alternatives that would satisfy them.

 

I didn't hear anything back from them, until few weeks ago just prior to going on the first holiday in 8 years. Literally few days before. I was setting up a market stall on a Sunday morning in town, when a man came up to me and said you have been served regarding a domain you own. I was so shocked!

 

Basically a package with letter, form to sign on my own headed paper, and images of my website, twitter and facebook and theirs. It was from a solicitors in London now acting on behalf of the man who contacted me initially. They are very prestigious by all accounts. Their claim infringement of IP and demanding I hand over my domain to them immediately and sign the paper to the affect I would remove my fb and twitter account, not set up another similar sounding website or (and this is what got me) any variations and pay costs. (front page said if I did this by x time they would waver costs).

 

I contacted an IP lawyer who gave a free initial consultation, sent him docs, and he felt that yes they had a case but I also had one and that it was going to cost me at least £600 to start the process of rebuttal. Well, I didn't have that kind of money. My holiday was a birthday present from my family and not wanting to dampen my holiday, I wrote back saying I had prearrangement and i would get legal advice upon my return, but as a gesture of good will I would put a disclaimer on my website, and deactivate (not delete) my fb and twitter accounts in the interim. They wrote email and letter back saying the noted the deactivation and have given me till 5th Dec.

 

So, here I am. Been doing lots of research on their alleged intellectual property rights. They first applied to trademark in oct 13 months after I had set up site, but it was in response to someone else trying to get trademarks, they opposed it, and managed to get the other parties application over turned, however their own application was withdrawn (due to non payment of second fee). They then applied for a EU trade mark with an image of their website name, it's in the publishing stage, but they also are trying to get that name IP (uk) and that's in the examination stage. So technically, they don't own the trademark of that name, yet. They have a case under "common law".

 

Sorry it's long and not to bare my predicament any longer, just wondering how I should tackle this? I am happy to remove website (as I have had no client so far via it) for out of pocket expenses (realistic wise) and set up with a new domain however suggesting this may be deemed as my intention which it most certainly was not! I feel their demands of signing to any variants is unreasonable without stating what those variants are, due to the descriptive and generic nature of the service, and area they could oppose me at every turn.

 

Would truly appreciate any help and advice, thought tackling Barclays was hard enough but this is way out of my league!

Edited December 3, 2014 by leilani
Pressed the button too soon

[BankFodder]

I think that you need to start off by telling us what the two domain names are

[leilani]

Oh dear was hoping that wouldn't be asked for as I know the search engines could pick it up. Do you mind me sending it in a PM to you? Or do you think it's safe on here?

[leilani]

Tried to send you pm with info won't go through

[renegadeimp]

Could send it to the admin email

[citizenB]

or you could send me a private message with the information. BF's message box often needs a good clear out !

[leilani]

Yes, it was rather full! Thanks CitizenB, have sent you PM with info. Maybe you could judge if acceptable for info to be visible.

[BankFodder]

Thank you.

 

I'm afraid that I don't have very much good news for you.

 

As far as I can see, their website was started in about 2009. This is well before the commencement date of your website which was in about May 2013.

 

The two domain names are extremely similar and also your areas of business interest are at least overlapping even if you could say that they are not identical.

 

You must not confuse Passing off with Trademarks. A Trademark creates a strict right which simply comes about by virtue of registration of the mark. It doesn't need to be a trading reputation to protect – although the mark must be used and if it is not used then it can be invalidated.

 

Passing off is a tort whereby one person causes damage to another person's business activity by trading in such a way that some confusion is created in the minds of reasonable customers so that those customers end up giving their business to the tortfeasor (the person committing the tort of passing off) instead of the victim business – the one which has created the reputation and goodwill for itself.

 

Part of the evidence in a claim for Passing off would be based upon a poll of actual customers and finding out whether in fact they had been confused by the two businesses. However, in addition to that a judge would draw his own inferences – especially where the confusion is highly likely and obvious.

 

You don't need to have exactly similar trading names, only broadly similar and also broadly similar business interests. It also helps if there is some similarity in the style and get up of the product or website or whatever it is which is claimed to be causing the confusion. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.

 

There is a high degree of similarity between your two domain names and there is a high level of overlap between your areas of business activity to the point where I would say that even a most basically informed person would say that you might be competitors. You even use some of the same language on each of your websites – which is necessary because your areas of business activity are so similar.

 

You came up with your website name and your idea for the business in early 2013. Your competitor had already been trading by that time for four years. As far as I can see, in the early years of your competitor's business they were focused far more on simply getting house minders but certainly by 2011 and 2012 the focus seems to have switched to minding animals.

 

You may well feel that you came up with your website name completely independently without any reference and without ever having seen your competitor's website or even heard of their business, but I'm afraid that your business name and their business name are so nearly identical and your areas of interest are so similar that you would find it very difficult to get any judge to accept that you hadn't decided to adopt at least their idea for the name as part of your own business.

 

Although passing off does not have to be deliberate – in other words a name might have occurred completely independently and the confusion between the two businesses might be completely unintended and totally accidental, that would still be Passing off. However, in the circumstances I can scarcely imagine that a judge would accept that the confusion has been caused completely accidentally – even though it might be caused innocently.

 

Your competitor applied for the trademark in about October 2013. This was a few months after you started your business. I can completely imagine that they were prompted to register a trademark because they saw your business and so therefore they decided to steal a march on you and their trademark registration was the beginning of their attack upon you.

 

If this is the case then their trademark registration was a wasted effort because when you register a trademark, you cannot use it to exclude or to displace existing businesses which are already using that name or that style. When you register a trademark you can only use it to defend yourself against people who in the future decide to copy what you're doing. From that point of view, their trademark registration is completely ineffective against your pre-existing business – which started a few months earlier.

 

However, their trademark application would be wasted anyway because they were already protected by the existing business reputation which had started in 2009.

 

I'm afraid that my view is that if there is an action against you for passing off then it would succeed and also if a judge took the view that you had deliberately chosen that name because you had seen theirs, this would increase the level of damages which will be awarded against you.

 

If they bought a trademark action against you then I think that you would have a good chance of defending because your business was in existence before their trademark registration. However, because you will probably be liable in the tort of passing off, a trademark action against you would be unnecessary.

 

I'm sorry to say that I think that you're on a hiding to nothing and that you should come up with a new name and have the website altered.

 

As far as their demand for undertakings and costs etc. – and also transfer the domain name, I don't see why you should do this – although if you want an easy life probably best to comply, at least with the transfer requirements. In terms of paying their costs, I would just refuse. Tell them you have acted innocently and now you are fully aware of the situation and you have been advised you are changing your name in order to avoid confusion. Tell them that they have got what they wanted. You're not prepared to take any further action and that if they take you to court then you will put them to proof of actual damage that they have suffered and you will also show the court that you have bent over backwards to accommodate them in the light of your innocent mistake

[leilani]

Thank you Bankfodder for your in depth reply, appreciated. Can you clarify as to how you are basing this info on, is it experienced legal knowledge or information found on web?

 

So, from your post it would appear that I haven't a leg to stand on although, through research I have conducted, and with the Solicitors suggestion that I do have a case for rebuttal, I thought I might have some leverage.

 

Do you not feel I have a case to ask for out of pocket expenses (you don't mention it), ie I am being made to transfer my domain to someone who doesn't own it and my website would have to be updated accordingly, that wouldn't happen if they weren't making their demands. By the way, they only contacted me when I got nearer to the front page of search engines, now I am on front page, which is what I believe actually prompted them to come after me, (my design skills better than their own obviously , considering they pay £20k per month to Google according to them on advertising and I pay...zero) however even with my web designing prowess , I have not had any enquiries since, never had any business via the site, so I am realistic enough to know when to let go something not serving me.

 

However, I am not being bullied into releasing my domain for something I did not do, i.e. intentionally set up on the back of another. I wouldn't do that. I don't read papers, and I don't watch TV, so I had never heard of them, none of my pet business and pet loving peeps have even heard of them either! So, it's not like I got an idea from them, I simply got the idea of the name, from being called it after I did a good deed. The name was available to purchase years after, and easily purchased ie with no warning which is what normally happens if registrar has been informed for the potential to infringe on another's business. My site was as you say innocently set up as a way of people accessing information about me and my service.

 

I also feel that even though you say our services will be deemed the same or similar, that they are very different services regardless of the area. They are no more than brokers for a service such as I provide, in my local area, and anyone visiting my site will see this immediately, therefore, very unlikely to be confused by the name which is apparent a reflection of that, and is used in it's descriptive sense.

 

Am I truly a threat? It's something I would like to put in the reply letter. Well according to them I am, yet since I put my site up they claim to have a turnover of over a million a year, yet their company accounts submitted last year, which I gained full copies of, says otherwise, they only made £96,000 in 12-13, so, if that is the case in the last year and a half, then I am no threat at all as they have increased their profits by over 1000% in that time, and I have taken a big fat zero.

 

I find it ironic, that ICANN can introduce single and plural TLD's at the beginning of the year, i.e. .Car vs .Cars and believing that they can coexist, regardless of creating potential traps for those like myself, personally I believe they can happily co exist, as people are not as stupid or easily confused as the legal system makes out. There are plenty of companys out there with similar sounding names, even same names, and they generally continue to trade and I am happy to say those types like Daimler AG vs Sany Group Company Ltd where Sany won regarding a similar but not the same logo even though they were in the similar niche gives me hope that things will change.

 

By the way, my case is very similar to UDRP case Businessesforsale.com and Businessforsale.com who do Exactly the same thing, even look the same, when one challenged the other, the defending party won (although one of the panellist didn't agree) and that was what I was basing my own comparison on.

 

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2013-2118

 

What it appears to come down to is MONEY, they have opted for a route I can't defend myself based on my financial circumstance, ordinarily such disputes go via UDRP, I do not have the resources to defend myself in a High court and they know it. However, I have no assets and £1 a month is likely what they would get out of me if ruled in their favour. There's a part of me that would like to see the claimant experience this.

 

So they have me as you put it on a road for hiding for nothing, i do feel that I should at least stand up against their bully boy tactics and respond in a way that they know I will mean business, maybe I am wrong here, but really what do I have to lose, that isn't being taken from me already? I will compose a draft and everyone who's interested see what they think.

 

Oh and if anyone wants to see the actual correspondence , happy to put them up with obvious bits removed, just in case I have missed out on saying something.

[BankFodder]

I've told you that I would not agree to do these transfers.

I have already said that you should probably do nothing other than to disable your site immediately - make the changes - which won't take very long and then re-launch it.

 

If you want to get feisty with them, well and good. I'm all for feisty. However I don't think that this is the time or the occasion to do it.

You don't have a lot to lose? I think that you do - not least, money and a quiet life.

[SADIE DE RUE]

Thank you Bankfodder for your in depth reply, appreciated. Can you clarify as to how you are basing this info on, is it experienced legal knowledge or information found on web?

 

So, from your post it would appear that I haven't a leg to stand on although, through research I have conducted, and with the Solicitors suggestion that I do have a case for rebuttal, I thought I might have some leverage.

 

Do you not feel I have a case to ask for out of pocket expenses (you don't mention it), ie I am being made to transfer my domain to someone who doesn't own it and my website would have to be updated accordingly, that wouldn't happen if they weren't making their demands. By the way, they only contacted me when I got nearer to the front page of search engines, now I am on front page, which is what I believe actually prompted them to come after me, (my design skills better than their own obviously , considering they pay £20k per month to Google according to them on advertising and I pay...zero) however even with my web designing prowess , I have not had any enquiries since, never had any business via the site, so I am realistic enough to know when to let go something not serving me.

 

However, I am not being bullied into releasing my domain for something I did not do, i.e. intentionally set up on the back of another. I wouldn't do that. I don't read papers, and I don't watch TV, so I had never heard of them, none of my pet business and pet loving peeps have even heard of them either! So, it's not like I got an idea from them, I simply got the idea of the name, from being called it after I did a good deed. The name was available to purchase years after, and easily purchased ie with no warning which is what normally happens if registrar has been informed for the potential to infringe on another's business. My site was as you say innocently set up as a way of people accessing information about me and my service.

 

I also feel that even though you say our services will be deemed the same or similar, that they are very different services regardless of the area. They are no more than brokers for a service such as I provide, in my local area, and anyone visiting my site will see this immediately, therefore, very unlikely to be confused by the name which is apparent a reflection of that, and is used in it's descriptive sense.

 

Am I truly a threat? It's something I would like to put in the reply letter. Well according to them I am, yet since I put my site up they claim to have a turnover of over a million a year, yet their company accounts submitted last year, which I gained full copies of, says otherwise, they only made £96,000 in 12-13, so, if that is the case in the last year and a half, then I am no threat at all as they have increased their profits by over 1000% in that time, and I have taken a big fat zero.

 

I find it ironic, that ICANN can introduce single and plural TLD's at the beginning of the year, i.e. .Car vs .Cars and believing that they can coexist, regardless of creating potential traps for those like myself, personally I believe they can happily co exist, as people are not as stupid or easily confused as the legal system makes out. There are plenty of companys out there with similar sounding names, even same names, and they generally continue to trade and I am happy to say those types like Daimler AG vs Sany Group Company Ltd where Sany won regarding a similar but not the same logo even though they were in the similar niche gives me hope that things will change.

 

By the way, my case is very similar to UDRP case Businessesforsale.com and Businessforsale.com who do Exactly the same thing, even look the same, when one challenged the other, the defending party won (although one of the panellist didn't agree) and that was what I was basing my own comparison on.

 

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2013-2118

 

What it appears to come down to is MONEY, they have opted for a route I can't defend myself based on my financial circumstance, ordinarily such disputes go via UDRP, I do not have the resources to defend myself in a High court and they know it. However, I have no assets and £1 a month is likely what they would get out of me if ruled in their favour. There's a part of me that would like to see the claimant experience this.

 

So they have me as you put it on a road for hiding for nothing, i do feel that I should at least stand up against their bully boy tactics and respond in a way that they know I will mean business, maybe I am wrong here, but really what do I have to lose, that isn't being taken from me already? I will compose a draft and everyone who's interested see what they think.

 

Oh and if anyone wants to see the actual correspondence , happy to put them up with obvious bits removed, just in case I have missed out on saying something.

 

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1986/7.html

 

British Leyland Motor Corp & Ors v Armstrong Patents Company Ltd & Ors [1986] UKHL 7

 

Click on the above link and have a read of this case because it is relevant to any claim against you alleging infringement of copyright, and based on the matters you have posted here about the claim you are being threatened with, it may be the case that you have grounds to raise a Defence against the copyright infringement allegation which is referred to in the legal profession as a “British Leyland Defence”.

 

If the other side do issue proceedings against you in the High Court, then Defending the claim will not cost you in court fees, because as the Claimant, the other side will be responsible for payment of all the applicable court fees.

 

Any award given in costs at the conclusion of the case are at the discretion of the court and there are many factors to be taken into account on the question of what costs, if any, the court decides to award.

 

Sadie

[SADIE DE RUE]

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1997/19.html

 

Kaisha v. Green Cartridge Company (Hong Kong) Limited (Hong Kong) [1997] UKPC 19

 

This is another key authority that you might like to read as it may help you with this case.

 

Sadie

Edited December 3, 2014 by SADIE DE RUE
Spelling!

[steampowered]

I essentially agree with Bankfodder. It seems to me that the claimant would have a fairly good chance of succeeding if a legal claim was brought. However it is also difficult to see that they have suffered any substantial loss and hence difficult to see that it would be worth them employing expensive London solicitors, particularly given your financial situation.

 

I would write-back a letter headed 'without prejudice save as to costs' setting out what you are prepared to do to settle the claim. This would include taking down the site and undertaking not to use that particular trading name in future. This would have to be on the basis that the claimant agrees to settle all claims it might have against you in connection with the website and on the basis that you will not pay any of their legal costs. You might also mention that you will defend court proceedings if brought, that you do not believe the claimant has suffered any loss or damage, as well as your financial situation and that you would not be in a position to pay any award even if court proceedings were brought.

 

You can offer to sell them the domain name if they want it!

[BankFodder]

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1986/7.html

 

British Leyland Motor Corp & Ors v Armstrong Patents Company Ltd & Ors [1986] UKHL 7

 

Click on the above link and have a read of this case because it is relevant to any claim against you alleging infringement of copyright, and based on the matters you have posted here about the claim you are being threatened with, it may be the case that you have grounds to raise a Defence against the copyright infringement allegation which is referred to in the legal profession as a “British Leyland Defence”.

 

If the other side do issue proceedings against you in the High Court, then Defending the claim will not cost you in court fees, because as the Claimant, the other side will be responsible for payment of all the applicable court fees.

 

Any award given in costs at the conclusion of the case are at the discretion of the court and there are many factors to be taken into account on the question of what costs, if any, the court decides to award.

 

Sadie

 

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1997/19.html

 

Kaisha v. Green Cartridge Company (Hong Kong) Limited (Hong Kong) [1997] UKPC 19

 

This is another key authority that you might like to read as it may help you with this case.

 

Sadie

 

I'm very sorry but I find that these references are very unhelpful.

 

It would assist enormously if you could explain the points that you are trying to make and refer us to the specific passage in each case that you think is relevant to the point you're trying to make.

 

I would also be interested to know why you think that there are copyright issues here.

[leilani]

Thank You Sadie de Rue for informational links, however I like Bankfodder am unsure of how it relates to infringement of a name and therefore their business? I have read through both links and although I don't understand most of it, what I can glean is that the reference to in "British Leyland Defence" is it relates to copyrights being breached when it comes to spare parts, and those manufacturers whom make a similar design whether based on copying the original 3d version and tweaking the design. Therefore, monopolisation and stifling the competition essentially. Which in a sense yes, the person I am up against is actually trying to monopolise and stifle any competition, that is clear via his trademark application.

 

Nonetheless, I feel it's likely that I am causing confusing regarding this as I am being frugal with info. I have decided to put up all correspondence with personal details omitted, so a more accurate picture can be seen. I will also include a version of the domain name with the first part omitted, it won't take much to realise the omitted part.

 

Thank you Steampowered for your post and info, I will take all into consideration upon writing this draft, however, just one thing, the "without prejudice save as to costs" what am I actually saying there? I haven't replied in any of my correspondence "without prejudice" for the reason, it can't be used in court unless I believe both agrees. If this was to go to court (that isn't my intention unless absolutely pushed to do so) I want them to see that I have been cooperative from the beginning, regardless of as Bankfodder calls it "feisty" .

[BankFodder]

I'm afraid that I disagree that you should send anything without prejudice. Simply say that you don't admit any liability. You need to be able to show a court that you are bending over backwards to help them and if you use without prejudice correspondence then you will not be able to do that.

 

Once again I would urge you to write as little as possible simply change the website name and let them respond how they want to.

 

Come back here if they give you any more trouble.

[steampowered]

'without prejudice' means that a document cannot be used in evidence in court proceedings. It can only be used after the main case has been decided, when the court looks at the issue of who should pay the other side's legal costs. Technically speaking this concept applies to any genuine settlement offer rather than being a function of the title you put on the letter.

 

On reflection, Bankfodder is probably right that you might want something on record for use as evidence showing that you engaged with them.

 

If you wanted to, you could have one 'open' letter explaining why you don't agree with their claim. You could then have another separate letter sent on the same day headed 'without prejudice' stating the terms on which you would be prepared to settle the case. The significance is that the first letter could be referred to by either side in court, the second letter could not be. But maybe this is overcomplicating things.

[leilani]

Here is the start of the correspondence

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]54698[/ATTACH] first contact 30 May 2014

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]54699[/ATTACH] my reply 30th May 2014

 

Not sure how this will come out so will just add these two now.

[leilani]

My second communication in response to the served paper work: sent 7/11/14

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Header in Caps

 

I write regarding the above. I am astonished at the extraordinary lengths your client has gone to notify me of his demands considering my return reply the very same day, in response to his initial email (see attached); where I gave Mr xxx the opportunity to embark amicably in resolving his concerns. If only your client had employed someone to do some proper investigative work, which wouldn't have taken much in all honesty, rather than confront me unnecessarily in town on a Sunday morning, we might have resolved this a lot sooner.

 

As a result, I am informing you that I am in the process of taking legal advice. However, due to a prearranged personal commitment I will not be available until 1st December 2014, whereafter, I hope to be in a position to answer your letter. Meanwhile, I am happy to deactivate my twitter and facebook accounts and put a disclaimer on my website in the interim as a show of good will. I trust this is acceptable to your client.

 

Yours sincerely,

xxx

 

Their reply: [ATTACH=CONFIG]54700[/ATTACH] of which I must reply by tomorrow.

 

The served letter of which I am addressing.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]54701[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]54702[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]54703[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]54704[/ATTACH] this is the one I am questioning, there is more, but I don't think I need to put it up as it's just their screen shots of the sites and FB and Twitter account.

 

Hope it makes a bit more sense. SORRY CAN'T SEEM TO DELETE REALISED THE IMAGES HAVE BEEN SHRUNK TO UNREADABLE SIZE

[BankFodder]

I suggest that you stop posting these images. Almost all of them are illegible. You have to post PDF documents. JPEG images are only for pictures.

 

I have to say though, that all of this correspondence your posting makes no difference at all to anything and is very unhelpful.

 

Frankly I don't think that there is any more advice that we can give and I may close this thread

[leilani]

Yes, I have realised that Bankfodder, but I feel that's a little unfair to close the post, isn't this is after all for all to comment on? Others may have other information that haven't seen this thread yet and might offer other useful info, apart from your very appreciated info???

[leilani]

'without prejudice' means that a document cannot be used in evidence in court proceedings. It can only be used after the main case has been decided, when the court looks at the issue of who should pay the other side's legal costs. Technically speaking this concept applies to any genuine settlement offer rather than being a function of the title you put on the letter.

 

On reflection, Bankfodder is probably right that you might want something on record for use as evidence showing that you engaged with them.

 

If you wanted to, you could have one 'open' letter explaining why you don't agree with their claim. You could then have another separate letter sent on the same day headed 'without prejudice' stating the terms on which you would be prepared to settle the case. The significance is that the first letter could be referred to by either side in court, the second letter could not be. But maybe this is overcomplicating things.

 

Thank you Steampowered for clarifying that.

[leilani]

Could someone tell if I "have" to reply to the solicitors letter by the date they specify? i.e. 5th. Just I rang the IP office and had some interesting information given to me and I want to be able to put it in letter which I have composed, but my brain aches at moment and there's no way I am going to get it finished by last post. I am guessing that actually, if it's not court ordered, I actually don't have any obligation to reply by their set date.

[SADIE DE RUE]

I posted a link to those two authorities because the judgments contain an abundance of information on the rule of law as to infringement of copyright and monopolization. There was no intention on my part to be unhelpful or to cause any confusion to anyone.

 

As to any time limit set by the solicitors for you to respond by, you are of course, as you say, under no obligation to meet this. If the other side does commence with proceedings then you must comply with any time limits set by the court.

 

Unfortunately, I have not been able to read the attachments as they are not PDF.

 

Is it proper and equitable for a person or an entity to monopolize his name or its business name to such extent so as to place restraint upon the liberty of others to use the letters of the alphabet as they chose to create a name that is similar to that person or that entity, whether intentional or not? In my opinion, it is not. Why? Because the alphabet is not exclusive property created and belonging to anyone or any business. The alphabet is not intellectual property.

 

Similar – Shimilar – no contest.

 

It also appears that the services offered by both businesses are similar but not the same and that the other side has suffered no loss to its economic expectations and so if any award is given it is likely to be minimal. On the question of costs, given your reasonable conduct in trying to resolve this dispute, it is unlikely that the court will award any costs to the other side as their conduct is improper and unreasonable and the matter certainly does not require ‘big-gun’ solicitors to represent them.

 

Sadie

[BankFodder]

I posted a link to those two authorities because the judgments contain an abundance of information on the rule of law as to infringement of copyright and monopolization. There was no intention on my part to be unhelpful or to cause any confusion to anyone.

 

Thank you for this explanation. I think that you are right - there is an abundance of information and normally it would be necessary to make your point and to say what it was in your cited cases which you felt supported your point.

I'm afraid that the cases you have referenced are not relevant to the problem in hand.

 

So far as time limits are concerned, there are no laws but on the other hand you are expected to cooperate and to engage in a reasonable way with the other side and if you do not then this could be reflected in the size of some future award or when it comes to the question of costs.

 

I'm afraid that this thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere any more. I don't think that we can advise you any further at this stage and I am going to close the thread.

If there is some material development then let us know about it and we may be able to give further advice.