NEWS Lush brings trademark lawsuit against Amazon
Cosmetics company Lush has brought a lawsuit against online retailor Amazon claiming it is infringing on its trademark, WIPR has learned.
Suing under the name Cosmetic Warriors Ltd, Lush has said that Amazon’s search engine has been generating results for the term ‘Lush’ despite its not selling any Lush products.
Lush has also claimed that, through the use of Google AdWords, a person searching for ‘Lush Bath Products’ would be redirected to the Amazon website where they would be shown alternative products.
Court documents seen by WIPR say “… a number of products were returned which were similar to L’s [Lush], but were not L’s at all.”
Te case has similarities with the Interflora v Marks & Spencer High Court ruling in May this year.
Mr Justice Arnold found that retailer Marks & Spencer’s use of ‘Interflora’ Google AdWords that produced search results for its flower delivery services did infringe trademarks belonging to an existing flower delivery company of the same name.
Making reference to the Interflora decision, Chris McLeod, first vice president of ITMA and director of trademarks at Squire Sanders LLP, said it would boil down to consumer knowledge.
“If you are looking for a particular brand and competing products come up either the person making that happen is infringing or you say consumers are canny and intelligent enough to know it is not the same thing and therefore not infringement,” he said.
“When performing the search you can see the products really do look like what Lush would sell and there are several uses of the word. But, that said, they are clearly not Lush products.”
Originally set up in 1994, Lush now operates more than 800 stores in 51 countries. It produces and sells handmade cosmetic products, including soaps, shower gels and shampoos.
In a pre-trial hearing, it filed permission to introduce a passing off claim into the lawsuit and bring in the results of a survey in order to identify customer confusion. Lush claimed it had already carried out two “expert designed” pilot surveys.
Te addition of a passing off claim was accepted but the survey was rejected due to having “no real value” to a trial judge putting himself in the position of a consumer.
“I would agree with that,” said McLeod. “It has always been problematic to use surveys to prove a point because it’s very difficult to create questions that aren’t going to lead the respondent into making an answer whether they wanted to or not.
“Tere’s a long-running trend whereby the courts have hammered survey evidence. It is now fairly straightforward for a judge to put him or herself in the position of an average consumer.” Te case is expected to go to trial before the end of the year.
www.worldipreview.com
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013
13
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 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196