This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
NEWS US brand targets online retailer over ‘shabby chic’ name


A US company has ordered a UK-based online retailer to remove the name ‘shabby chic’ from its website, which sells vintage goods including linen and picture frames.


Shabby Chic Brands, which owns a trademark for ‘shabby chic’ (a form of interior design), has threatened legal action if the owner of shabbychicoriginals.co.uk does not change its name.


Te site’s owner, Lizzy Daly, has vowed to fight the brand over the term which, she says, is generic. According to reports, she says an online search revealed 200 articles containing the expression, only four of which related to the US brand.


Tis is not the first time Shabby Chic Brands has targeted an online retailer for using the name ‘shabby chic’. In April this year it filed a complaint at Organization


the World Intellectual Property (WIPO) over the website


frenchshabbychic.net’. Te site redirected anyone searching ‘French shabby chic’ to another site selling furniture.


Shabby Chic was attempting to have the website removed through the Uniform Domain-Name


Dispute-Resolution Policy arbitration process. However, the panellist overseeing the case refused, ruling that ‘shabby chic’ was a generic term.


In the ruling on June 5, 2012, the arbitrator Harrie R. Samaras said: “It is clear from the evidence of record and the panel’s own Internet searching that ‘shabby chic’ is used ubiquitously on the Internet by many third parties on their websites, or in their domain names to describe an interior design style and a style of furniture and furnishings.”


Te panellist said that, usually, the domain name must still be “genuinely” used for the “relied- upon meaning” in order for the respondent to keep it. Because the website owner was running a legitimate business that depended on the term ‘shabby chic’, the panellist rejected the complaint.


Although to


Shabby Chic does not appear have filed a similar complaint against


shabbychicoriginals.co.uk, and may yet pursue the case in court, the decision may provide some encouragement for Daly. 


BEST Rechtsanwälte / Attorneys


Rechtsan Attorneys


wälte


BEST Rechtsanwälte was established in 1998. Located in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, it is a boutique law firm specialised in Intellectual Property Law. Its two partners, both having worked in industry, as attorneys and in other positions for many years, have a strong back- ground in this field. Together with further experienced attorneys and highly trained and motivated paralegals and support staff, the firm is well established to handle large quantities of work while ensuring highest quality standards.


BEST acts on behalf of large corporate clients and SMEs from various countries and numerous sectors of industry and commerce as well as on behalf of law firms based outside Germany, whose clients BEST Rechtsanwälte represents before the German courts and the German Patent and Trademark Office or in matters involving Community Trademarks and Designs.


BEST provides strategic consulting in trademark, design and domain matters and the complete spectrum of services in these fields, in- cluding clearance, prosecution, defence and litigation of clients’ rights, and finds cost-effective and efficient answers to clients’ questions.


BEST also protects and defends clients’ interests on issues of unfair competition, advertising, and domains, from clearance and registra- tion to UDRP and ADR proceedings, recovery, watching, social media and data protection issues.


For larger clients all of these services can be provided on the basis of an Agreement at an annual flat rate. We offer the best possible service to our clients at competitive rates. This is where our industry experience meets client expectations.


BEST Rechtsanwälte


Industriepark Höchst / E 416, 65926 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Tel +49 69 305 6057, Fax +49 69 305 16415, Web www.best-ip.eu, Email ip@best-ip.eu


10 World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2012 www.worldipreview.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128