Non-disclosure agreements/NDA are a form of confidentiality agreement used to provide governing terms to protect confidential information. Commonly, an NDA is entered into by the parties involved at the beginning of a commercial transaction. However, it is possible to enter into a retrospective NDA so long as all parties agree. Retrospective NDAs occur when confidential information is shared prior to the signing of confidentiality obligations.

Almost all types of information can be classed as confidential information and therefore be subjected to a non-disclosure agreement. Whilst there is no specific definition of what confidential information is, it is not possible to claim information readily accessible to the public is confidential therefore meaning restrictions cannot be placed on it.

An NDA should be entered into as quickly as possible, and before disclosing any confidential information within a commercial transaction. Entering into a written agreement is one of the best ways to protect confidential information, as a contractual obligation is easier to enforce.
Whilst the implementation of an NDA can cause deterrence to release confidential information, an NDA cannot guarantee that the confidential information will remain confidential. Should any confidential information be released, remedies are available as either a preventative measure or compensation.

If it comes to light that confidential information may be released or used, an injunction can be sought to prevent this. Injunctions are not much use if the information has already been released.

Another form of compensation available is damages, this offers the claimant compensation for the breach. It is calculated by looking at what the information released would have been used for by the claimant and the potential loss of earnings as a result of the information not being used for its intended purpose.

For further advice and assistance, please contact our Commercial Solicitors on 01604 344512 / 01908 044759 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

When a company enters insolvency, the conduct of its directors comes under intense scrutiny. Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) play a crucial role in assessing whether directors have acted in accordance with their legal duties and whether disqualification proceedings may be appropriate. This article explores the legal framework governing director disqualification in insolvency, common grounds for disqualification, and key strategies for insolvency practitioners working in this complex area.

Legal Framework: The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986

The primary legislation governing director disqualification is the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986). The Act provides for the disqualification of directors whose conduct falls below the expected standards, thereby protecting creditors, the public, and the integrity of our corporate landscape.

Under the CDDA 1986, the Secretary of State (via the Insolvency Service) or an official receiver can bring disqualification proceedings where there is evidence of unfit conduct by a director of an insolvent company. If a court finds a director unfit, it can impose a disqualification order for a period ranging from 2 to 15 years.

Additionally, directors may offer a disqualification undertaking, which allows them to voluntarily accept a ban without the need for court proceedings.

Common Grounds for Director Disqualification

IPs should be aware of the key grounds that can trigger disqualification under the CDDA 1986:

1. Trading While Insolvent

A director who allows a company to continue trading when it is insolvent may be guilty of wrongful trading (under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986). If the director knew (or ought to have known) that insolvency was unavoidable but failed to take steps to minimise losses to creditors, disqualification is likely.

2. Fraudulent Trading

More serious than wrongful trading, fraudulent trading (under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986) occurs when a director intentionally carries on business with the intent to defraud creditors. This can result in both disqualification and criminal liability.

3. Misuse of Company Assets

Directors who misuse company funds—such as making preferential payments to certain creditors, misappropriating assets, or engaging in transactions at an undervalue—may face disqualification.

4. Persistent Breaches of Company Law

Failing to keep proper accounting records, failing to file accounts or returns, or repeatedly breaching statutory obligations can indicate unfitness to act as a director.

5. Failure to Cooperate with Insolvency Practitioners

Directors are legally required to provide information to IPs and cooperate fully with insolvency investigations. Obstruction or failure to deliver company records can be grounds for disqualification.

Strategies for Insolvency Practitioners

IPs play a crucial role in gathering evidence, reporting misconduct, and advising stakeholders. Here are some key strategies to navigate director disqualification cases:

1. Conducting a Thorough Investigation

IPs should undertake a detailed review of company records, financial transactions, and director conduct. Key documents include:

• Management accounts and bank statements
• Board meeting minutes
• Contracts and creditor correspondence

2. Identifying Red Flags Early

Signs of potential misconduct include:

• Unexplained withdrawals of funds
• Unusual transactions shortly before insolvency
• Directors setting up a phoenix company to continue business under a new entity

3. Preparing a Robust Report for the Insolvency Service

Under section 7 of the CDDA 1986, IPs must report suspected director misconduct to the Insolvency Service. A well-structured report should highlight key breaches, supporting evidence, and why disqualification may be appropriate.

4. Advising Directors on Their Position

Where appropriate, IPs should advise directors on their options, including:

• Cooperating fully to avoid more severe penalties
• Considering a voluntary disqualification undertaking
• Seeking legal advice if facing potential disqualification

5. Managing Disqualified Directors

If a director is disqualified, they are prohibited from being involved in the management of a company. Breaching a disqualification order is a criminal offence and can lead to imprisonment. IPs should ensure compliance and be vigilant for shadow directorships.

Protecting creditors and stakeholders

Director disqualification is a critical tool for maintaining corporate accountability, and insolvency practitioners play a central role in ensuring that unfit directors are properly investigated and reported. By understanding the legal framework, identifying misconduct early, and providing strategic advice, IPs can help uphold the integrity of insolvency processes while protecting creditors and stakeholders.

For further advice and assistance, please contact our Insolvency Law team on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

There are many forms of business relationships available to business owners. Franchising is most definitely an efficient strategy for growth as it allows businesses to expand rapidly and potentially become a national or worldwide name.

Franchising is the act of one person (the franchisor), granting to another (the franchisee) a license to operate the franchisor’s business by using their brand, products and method of operation in exchange for a fee.

As for any new business model, there are various elements to take into consideration when becoming a franchisor.

  1. Becoming a franchisor

To become a successful franchisor, it is important to consider the following steps:

Business model evaluation: it is important for a business to assess whether its business model is achievable as well as ensuring that its brand has the required market appeal.

Business plan: franchisees must understand a franchisor’s business. To facilitate this, developing a strong business plan is highly recommended. This is so a franchisor can detail the structure of the business, the roles and responsibilities of both franchisor and franchisee. This would also allow a franchisor to set out estimates in terms of finance and marketing strategy.

Operations manual: developing a detailed operations manual is one of the most important aspects of the franchising process. The manual will govern the way the franchisee will conduct the franchise business in setting out instructions for the day-to-day operations of the business. This manual should ultimately be classified as confidential as it will contain the business’ know-how and the secrets of its success.

Pre-contract disclosure: a franchisor is no obliged to make pre-contract disclosures. However, on the franchisee’s point of view, it would be more prudent for the franchisee to undertaken due diligence in order to understand the franchise and gather information on its success to make an informed decision before getting into business.

Intellectual Property rights: as a franchisor will have developed know-how and created some brand awareness, intellectual property rights would more than likely have significance when franchising a business. It would be advisable for franchisors to seek to protect such intellectual property rights.

Often, patent protection is unlikely to be necessary as franchises will not use a patented process. Copyright and trademarks are on the other hand of significance. Copyright will give protection to original literary and artistic works which can cover advertising slogans. Trademarks will bear the greater significance as it will protect the brand name and image of the franchising business. Before registering for a trademark, franchisors should consider the following:

Selection of franchisees: it is important that franchisors undertake a rigorous selection of franchisees to ensure each candidate’s suitability.

Training of franchisees: it is crucial for franchisors to have in place a strong training and support system for franchisees as this will provide franchisees with the required skills and knowledge to run the business effectively and successfully.

  1. Advantages of becoming a franchisor

There are many benefits of franchising a business. Here is a list of some of these advantages.

Business growth: franchising a business allows to facilitate the expansion of a business and its network more easily without having to invest a lot upfront. By setting up a franchise, franchisors can focus on developing new ideas while franchisees manage the day-to-day operations of the business.

Brand development: franchisors would gain access to new territories by allocating various locations to franchisees which will promote the brand as well as the business’ reputation.

Constant cash flow: franchisors will benefit from steady income with minimum risks from the franchise fees and ongoing royalties.

Risk mitigation: financial and operational risks are always a concern when expanding a business. However, in the case of franchise, these will be shared with the franchisees.

  1. Disadvantages of becoming a franchisor

Although the disadvantages of becoming a franchisor are lesser than the benefits, these still need to be considered.

Reputation: a franchisor’s reputation, and by extension its business, can be affected by franchisees. This can be due to poor performance or staff behaviour, which is why the franchisee selection process is a crucial step when creating a franchise.

Shared profit: as mentioned above, it is a benefit that the risks are shared between franchisors and franchisees. However, this also means that profit from franchisors’ idea is shared with franchisees.

Sharing confidential information: franchisors need to ensure that their franchisees are committed to the brand and business and do not disclose confidential information. It is therefore highly recommended to have in place watertight contracts to protect trade secrets.

Management: franchisors’ guidelines, practices and overall instructions do restrict what franchisees can do. However, they are not the franchisors’ employees and therefore, franchisors do not have management control over them. As a result, having a rigorous franchisee selection process, proper training and clear operations manual is critical for the good performance of the business.

It is undeniable that franchising a business comes with many benefits and would be one of the most effective ways to expand a business successfully. Nevertheless, this is not a process which can be hurried, and it is highly recommended to seek legal advice to fully understand a franchisor’s rights and obligations. Our commercial team has a wide range of experience in advising franchisors and would be delighted to assist individuals and businesses with any queries.

For further advice and assistance, please contact our Commercial Solicitors on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

What is the EU AI Act?

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act, or EU AI Act, is the act which has recently been passed by the EU Parliament to govern the supply and use of all AI systems in the EU.

When does the EU AI Act come into effect?

The Act was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 12 July 2024 and came into effect on 1 August 2024. However, most of its provisions apply only from 2 August 2026, some will take effect early February 2025.

Nevertheless, the European Commission encourages organisations to adopt the AI Pact voluntarily before the AI Act starts to apply. The AI Pact is expected to be launched during the transitional period between the Act coming into force and the start of its application.

What is covered by the EU AI Act?

The Act takes a horizontal approach in its application. The Act applies to all AI systems generally, instead of setting out specific rules for each sector.

The Act establishes a legal framework for the development, supply and use of AI in the EU and contains the following rules:

Which sectors are excluded under the EU AI Act?

Article 2(3) to 2(12) of the Act set out the sectors which would be excluded from its application. These include:

What are the prohibited practiced under the EU AI Act?

Article 5 of Chapter 2 of the Act sets out the AI activities which are prohibited under the Act. These are as follows:

Does the EU AI Act apply to the UK?

The Act applies to all businesses within the EU, albeit its scope is extra-territorial. This means that all businesses in the UK which develop AI systems for the EU market will fall under the Act’s regulations. It is therefore necessary for UK companies to act now in order to comply with the Act’s requirements. Businesses would need to take the following actions:

Notwithstanding this, the UK government acknowledges that legislative action will need to be taken in the future in response to the ever-expanding AI technologies. The Act will undeniably bring new compliance challenges for businesses and it is important for businesses to address these challenges.

For further advice and assistance, please contact our Commercial Solicitors on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

In a recent High Court case, Re BHS Ltd forever changed the landscape in terms of corporate governance and directors’ fiduciary duties for companies facing insolvency. Not only wrongful trading was established in this case, but the concept of misfeasant trading was also introduced.

Misfeasant trading occurs when directors acted in breach of their duties on the basis that a company should have gone into administration or insolvent liquidation earlier, had the directors complied with their duties.

A director’s duties are set out in the Companies Act 2006 at section 171 to section 176. According to these, directors must act within their powers; promote the success of the company; exercise independent judgment; exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence; avoid conflicts of interest; not accept benefits from third parties; and declare interests in transactions or arrangements.

BHS will mainly focus on the duty set out in section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, being to promote the success of the company and in particular, the duty to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole.

  1. The facts

In March 2015, the entire issued share capital of the BHS Group was sold and four people were appointed as directors of the four companies. Following such appointment, the directors engaged in various transactions with a view to restructure and finance the companies. Unfortunately, despite the directors’ actions to secure further funding, the four companies filed for administration in April 2016 and joint liquidators were appointed.

The joint liquidators brought claims in December 2020 against the four directors for wrongful and misfeasant trading.

  1. The claims

Claims were brought forward to the court, for wrongful trading under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986, and for misfeasant trading under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Claim for wrongful trading

For a claim for wrongful trading to be successful, three conditions must be met according to section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986:

In this case, the court found that all three conditions were met. In particular, the judge found that the date of knowledge was 8 September 2015, when the directors authorised the companies to enter into a new finance arrangement which had high risks of prejudicing the companies’ creditors. This was seven months before the directors actually filed for administration.

According to the court, the directors could have had a defence if they could demonstrate that they took every step to minimise the loss to creditors from the date of knowledge. The court held that they had not done so in view of the risks they took with the restructuring process.

The court further held that the directors seeking legal advice on whether they could continue to trade carried little weight as a defence. It was reported that none of the professionals instructed advised that insolvency was inevitable. Moreover, the court held that notwithstanding seeking legal advice, the directors still had to exercise independent judgment which they had not in this case.

In view of this, the court held that the directors were each liable on a several basis for a 15% share of the amount by which the loss to the creditors got worse between the date of knowledge and the date on which BHS filed for administration.

Claim for misfeasant trading

In bringing this claim forward, the joint liquidators argued that by continuing to trade when the companies should have been in administration, the directors acted in breach of their duties pursuant to sections 171 to 176 of the Companies Act 2006.

According to the Companies Act 2006, directors are subject to various common law and statutory fiduciary duties. In particular, section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 creates a duty for directors to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole.

In the usual course of business, the duty to promote would mean acting in the best interests of the shareholders. However, when a company is in financial difficulty, and entering the “zone of insolvency”, directors would have a duty to consider the interests of the creditors. These interests should then be the overriding concern as the financial situation worsens.

Contrary to a claim for wrongful trading, a misfeasance claim can arise at any time and it is not necessary to wait until there is no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvency for section 212 to be engaged. Therefore, the date of concern does not necessarily have to be the date of knowledge. Instead, this could be any dates when the directors were expected to comply with their duties under section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 and in doing so, considering whether a transaction was in the best interest of the creditors.

In this particular case, the court found that the directors’ duty to consider the creditors’ best interests arose in June 2015. Although this was before the date of knowledge, and that at the time, insolvency was not inevitable, it was nevertheless sufficient for insolvency to be a probability.

Finally, the court advised that causation is still an important element when considering a section 212 claim where a director’s breach of duties was found to be the cause of the loss. In this instance, the directors approved transactions with payments made to the benefit of the shareholders and their related parties, or even payments which did not benefit the company.

The decision

Fortunately for two of the directors, the claim against one of the directors was adjourned and the other director settled the joint liquidators’ claims and therefore did not take part in the trial.

On the other hand, the other two directors were held personally liable by the High Court to pay at least £18 million to the joint liquidators.

  1. The changes brought

In light of this decision, changes are made to the directors duties when companies are in the zone of insolvency. Re BHS Ltd prompted legislative changes and gave a reminder to directors of their legal responsibilities as well as the consequences for not complying with those responsibilities. This landmark case creates new law in terms of corporate governance and the importance of directors’ fiduciary duties.

As a consequence of this case, directors need to recognise when their company is in financial difficulty and keep clear records to show that they have exercised independent judgment and reasonable skill to make decisions. Directors cannot simply rely on legal advice they receive.

Finally, a mere hope to avoid insolvency is not enough of a defence to protect directors. Directors also have to carefully consider any transactions and keep in mind the shareholders’ interests, as well as the company’s creditors.

As a director, it is a great source of stress when your company is in financial difficulty. Our commercial team has a wide range of experience in advising on bankruptcy and insolvency matters and would be happy to assist both individuals and businesses with any issues.

For further advice and assistance, please contact our Commercial Solicitors on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

There are various ways an individual or a company may enter the world of business ownership, such as becoming a franchisee. A franchise is the acquisition by a buyer (the franchisee) of the rights to operate a business from the original owner (the franchisor). The franchisor grants the franchisee the right to use its brand rights, know-how and business model within a specific territory, in exchange for payment of a fee.

As exciting as it is to become a franchisee, there are factors to take into consideration before entering a franchise. These include how to become a franchisee, as well as the benefits and risks of becoming a franchisee.

1. How to become a franchisee

It is important for an individual or a business to consider whether it is financially ready for this type of commitment. Franchisees often have to pay various fees to the franchisor with ultimately no guarantee that the business will be successful. This is why good planning is essential.

A potential franchisee must conduct thorough research on the franchises and industries it would be considering. In particular, it is recommended to consider various factors such as:

2. Advantages

There are many advantages that come from buying a franchise. Here is a list of some of these advantages.

3. Disadvantages

Notwithstanding the above advantages, potential franchisees should also consider the following disadvantages of becoming a franchisee.

Becoming a franchisee offers a structured path to business ownership with the support of an established brand. However, thorough research is important before buying a franchise as well as seeking legal advice, and fully understanding the commitments involved. Our commercial team has a wide range of experience in advising franchisees and would be happy to assist both individuals and businesses with any issues and queries they may have.

For further advice and assistance, please contact our Commercial Solicitors on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

The entertainment giant Netflix has been hit by a lawsuit shortly after the release of its drama, Baby Reindeer. The drama depicts the story of a struggling comic, Donny Dunn, being harassed and stalked by Martha Scott for many years. The series was written by and stars comedian Richard Gadd, who wrote the series about his own alleged experience of being stalked.

Both Mr Gadd and Netflix claim to have endeavoured to safeguard Martha’s real identity. That said, the first episode of the series claims that “this is a true story” and the show’s end credits say that the programme is “based on real events. However certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes.” Nevertheless, it appeared that many fans took it upon themselves to unravel the mystery. None of the parties involved confirmed the real identity of Martha. Scottish law graduate, Fiona Harvey, however came forward during an interview with Piers Morgan in “Piers Morgan Uncensored” where she claimed that she inspired the stalker character of Martha.

Fiona Harvey claims that the series falsely depicted her as a stalker who was a convicted criminal, and that Netflix did not investigate to confirm whether or not Mr Gadd’s story was in fact true. In one scene in particular, viewers can see Martha sexually assaulting Donny along a canal one night. Ms Harvey denies ever sexually assaulting Mr Gadd and went on to declare that Netflix “told these lies, and never stopped, because it was a better story than the truth, and better stories made money”. She has now filed a lawsuit.

Moreover, in Ms Harvey’s interview with Piers Morgan, she did confirm that she had known Mr Gadd and that although they seemed to have exchanged a few “jokey banter emails”, she fully denied having ever sent over 40,000 emails or having left 350 hours of voicemail messages as portrayed in the series. However, the lawsuit does say that there are some real comments she made to Mr Gadd which were used in the show’s dialogue.

Ms Harvey accuses Netflix of ruining her reputation in their depiction of the stalker. She has declared that since the series, she has received many death threats which has left her afraid of leaving her house or even checking the news. In the lawsuit, it is said that she has “become extremely secluded and isolated, in fear of the public, going days without leaving her home”. Netflix has always shown its support to Mr Gadd in declaring that the show was “obviously a true story of the horrific abuse that the writer and protagonist Richard Gadd suffered at the hands of a convicted stalker”.

Harvey did warn in May that she planned to take legal action against Netflix and has now moved on to formally file for a lawsuit for defamation, negligence, and privacy violations. Fiona’s lawyers are seeking actual damages of $50million (£39 million), plus legal fees and statutory interest. Ms Harvey told BBC News that her team would win the case “otherwise we wouldn’t be doing it”. In addition, her lawyer declared that there was no doubt that Ms Harvey’s identity was used for the show and that he had “incontrovertible documentary evidence” proving that his client had never been convicted of a crime. This would include a background check and certificate confirming that Ms Harvey has no criminal convictions on her record.

Notwithstanding all of the above, and whether or not the character of Martha was indeed inspired by Ms Harvey, it is undeniable that Ms Harvey’s privacy and reputation has been impacted. Should Netflix have undertaken a better duty of care when it comes to the identity of the characters in the show? This would be a question for the courts to decide.

It can be delicate to navigate the law when it comes to media and entertainment as well as a source of great stress when entering into a dispute. Our commercial team has a wide range of experience and would be happy to assist both individuals and businesses with any issues they may have.

For further advice and assistance, please contact our Commercial Solicitors on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

Celebrities have always had to navigate between the repercussions of being famous and their right to privacy. In particular, it is no mystery that celebrities often have disputes with newspapers in respect of articles they have published, or how they have obtained information.

British actor Hugh Grant has recently been involved in a privacy case in which he accused the publisher of The Sun, News Group Newspapers (NGN), of unlawful information gathering.

The actor has accused the publisher of various offences, such as phone hacking, landline tapping, bugging his phone and burgling his flat and office. His case was due to be heard next year at London’s High Court in January 2025 alongside Prince Harry and others. The actor, along with many others, were suing NGN for alleged widespread unlawful information gathering.

Hugh Grant has always been an important campaigner on press reform since the phone-hacking scandal emerged over a decade ago. Although the actor wanted to see this case go through to court, he was advised by his lawyers to accept the publisher’s settlement offer. This case was therefore settled “without admission of liability” and for an “enormous amount of money”.

The actor stated that he “would love to see all the allegations that they deny tested in court” and was ready to go all the way through to the hearing next year. Nevertheless, he was advised that he risked being liable for £10 million in legal costs if the case proceeded to trial.

The rules of civil litigation set out that the losing party of a case usually pays the winner’s costs. However, this could all change when it comes to settlement as if the damages awarded to a successful claimant are less than the settlement amount offered by the defendant, the claimant may have to pay the legal costs for all sides after the offer was made. The actor was therefore advised that, should this case go to trial, he would risk being liable for millions.

The European Convention on Human Rights provides for a right to privacy under Article 8, which undeniably needs to be balanced against the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. These rights are constantly argued and relied on in cases between celebrities and newspapers, especially since there are no statues or case law covering these issues in the UK. It is very important for individuals (and even businesses) to take independent legal advice on Intellectual Property Rights.

For further advice and assistance please contact our Commercial Solicitors on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

 

 

 

The American political candidate, Donald Trump, has once again been asked to refrain from using an artist’s music during his rallies. This time, the Estate of the late Irish singer, Sinead O’Connor, together with the label Chrysalis Records have demanded that Mr Trump “desist from using her music immediately”.

Both her Estate and the label stated that the artist “lived by a fierce moral code defined by honesty, kindness, fairness, and decency towards her fellow human beings”. O’Connor’s political views differed from those of Mr Trump and they added that she would be “insulted to have her work misrepresented in this way”.

It is not the first time that Mr Trump and his associates have been asked to desist from using an artist’s music. For example, Rihanna, Linkin Park and Steven Tyler have made the same requests.

So, how can artists protect their own music?

Music copyright is an automatic right in the UK. You do not need to apply or pay a fee and you automatically receive copyright protection for original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work.

With the protection of copyright, the owner has the right to copy, distribute, adapt, display and perform a creative work.

Intellectual Property rights are various and highly important when it comes to protecting your work. It is highly recommended to take legal advice in order to properly and legally protect your rights. Our commercial team has a wide range of experience when it comes to Intellectual Property and would be happy to assist individuals or businesses on issues relating to it.

For further advice and assistance please contact our Commercial Solicitors on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

L V Bespoke, a family-run business based in Norfolk, recently won a trademark dispute against the fashion giant, Louis Vuitton, after a two-year legal battle.

Back in 2020 when lockdown hit the country, Mr and Mrs Osborne founded L V Bespoke. They had a  view to create steel plant supports and other home and garden products.

They decided to register L V Bespoke as a trademark as their business looked like it was taking off. Unfortunately, they received a letter from the Louis Vuitton legal team.

The fashion label argued that by registering the trademark “L V Bespoke”, there would be confusion in the eyes of consumers. Such confusion could also work for the benefit of the couple. According to them, the use of L V Bespoke would “take unfair advantage of, or would be detrimental to” Louis Vuitton’s earlier trademarks. 

Mr and Mrs Osborne decided to fight the objection. They argued that their metalwork products are clearly different than the metalwork found in Louis Vuitton’s handbags. The couple thought it was “surreal” to compare both metalwork and imagine that there could be any sort of confusion. This is what the judge, Matthew Williams, ruled in favour of.  According to him, “almost all of L V Bespoke’s goods were self-evidently dissimilar” to Louis Vuitton’s products. He added that “the only point of commonality is the presence of the same two single letters “L and V”.

Mr and Mrs Osborne spent almost over £15,000.00 in legal proceedings and lost two years of potential business growth. The judge however ruled in their favour and ordered Louis Vuitton to pay their costs and £4,000 in damages.

Intellectual Property Law can be delicate and a source of great stress when entering into a dispute. Whether in relation to trademark, copyright, patent, or passing off, the rules around Intellectual Property Rights can be difficult to navigate. Our commercial team has a wide range of experience when it comes to Intellectual Property and infringement of IP Rights and would be happy to assist both individuals and businesses with any issues relating to Intellectual Property.

For further advice and assistance please contact our Commercial Solicitors on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk