Peter Adediran, Internet lawyer, recently won a case dealing with Trademark Infringement wherein he represented the claimant, Cornices Centre Limited.
The claimant is Cornices Centre Limited, a company that specializes in the finest quality plaster cornices, covings, ceiling roses, and other plaster moldings that they make, install, and supply to companies all over the world. The abovementioned company is based in South London, UK and was founded in December 2003. The “claimant” designs, produces, and installs fine quality plaster cornice coverings and plaster moldings.
The defendants Miles and Wilde Limited are also providers of similar plasterworks including cornices and covings in London incorporated. Located in Southeast London, Miles and Wilde, Limited is a direct competitor of the “claimant”.
Summary of the Case
Miles and Wilde Limited infringed the claimant’s registered trademark using a sign reading “CORNICE CENTRE” in a Google AdWords campaign as part of its headline text in relation to goods and services which are identical to those for which the claimant’s trademark is registered (the goods and services of the “claimant”).
The claimant is the owner of European Union Trade Mark Registration Number 017451436 and 017865420 for CORNICES CENTRE registered in classes 16, 19, 25, 35, 37, 35 covering, among other things, building and repair services; advisory services relating to the renovation of property services; advertising, marketing and promotional services; decorative mouldings (non-metallic) Cornices and Covings (non-metallic) goods (the ‘Trade Mark’).
Outcomes as per the Court Order
“The First and Second Defendants shall, within 14 days of the date of service of this Order, pay
the Claimant its costs of the action including the application for judgment in default dated 07
August 2018 and this application for costs, summarily assessed in the sum of £[18,865.00 ].”
Things to Consider
Trademark infringement is becoming a hot topic as the Internet blossoms. This case is outlined to demonstrate the importance of protecting your assets (i.e. trademarks, copyrights, etc.). A case like this brings to light pressing and topical questions:
The questions prompted by a case like Cornices Centre Limited v Jason John Wilde and Miles and Wilde Limited (or a previous case of Office Cleaning Services v Westminster Window and General Cleaning: HL 1946 and A&E Television Network v Channel 4 Television Corporation in 2011) are largely regarding the small, and subtle, difference in words. For example, is there enough of a distinction between “CORNICE” and “CORNICES” as far as trademark legislation is concerned?
Trademark infringement in ads on the Internet is a hot topic that hasn’t been fully covered by the law. In this case, it was determined that that the “defendants” were guilty of trademark infringement on the GoogleAdvertising campaign. Where does that line lie?
For answers to these questions, consult the expertise of Internet Lawyer, Peter Adediran via his company, PAIL Solicitors.