UK IPEC Issues Decision in Hugz Jeans Copy Cat Case

Monday, November 23, 2020

On 19 November 2020, the Mental Property Enterprise Courtroom (IPEC) within the UK handed down its judgment within the case of Freddy SPA v Hugz Clothes Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 3032, which ran for an unusually very long time for the IPEC (three days).

The choice was a uncommon incidence of a passing off declare, along with different IP causes of motion, succeeding within the get-up of a purposeful merchandise, being “bum enhancing denims”. Ordinarily, such instances, notably with respect to trend gadgets, fail because the get-up is seen as merely design components or decorative, or the circumstances of the use result in a conclusion that different commerce marks (e.g. model names and logos) dominate shopper notion.

This case might embolden model homeowners in relation to enforcement of the feel and appear of their clothes because it creates the potential of confusion ‘post-sale’ along with the purpose of sale.

The case

The claimant, Freddy SpA (Freddy) launched WR.UP branded denims in 2012, advertising and marketing the merchandise as “body-enhancing” denims, which give the wearer “the looks of slimmer hips, while concurrently lifting and separating the buttocks”. These denims departed from the same old shapewear as they utilized to the outer-garments utilizing a system of silicone inserts slightly than widespread body-enhancing undergarments.

The defendants, HUGZ Clothes Restricted (amongst others) (Hugz) beforehand admitted copying the WR.UP denims and the events entered right into a settlement settlement in April 2019. Nonetheless, not lengthy afterwards Hugz launched a second model of their HUGZ branded denims. Freddy claimed that the advertising and marketing of the second HUGZ mannequin denims breached the settlement settlement, infringed their patent and varied unregistered design rights, along with constituting illegal passing off.

In an uncommon flip of occasions, from June 2020 Hugz weren’t represented and barely interacted with the court docket course of. The truth is, no-one from Hugz attended the trial, and in consequence, all Hugz’s counterclaims have been struck off on an utility by Freddy. The Courtroom was subsequently within the unusual place of getting uncontested truth and knowledgeable proof from Freddy, and nothing from the Hugz aside from its amended defence.

Deputy Choose Stone discovered an infringement of patent and breach of the settlement settlement, along with the extra uncommon facets of the declare for passing off and infringement of designs.

Passing off

Freddy claimed goodwill in relation to a mix of components of its WR.UP denims, together with the polished steel badge, the positioning of the badge on the denims and the positioning and form of the seams (“Freddy Get-Up”). Hugz claimed that, as a result of the denims are bought by reference solely to the manufacturers FREDDY and WR.UP, all of the goodwill lay in these manufacturers, and that Hugz didn’t use both model and was subsequently not infringing.

The decide discovered that it was typical for girls’s denims to bear branding components on their rear pockets, and that buyers have been conscious, via Freddy’s advertising and marketing efforts, of the Freddy Get-Up, and had been educated that the Freddy Get-Up on denims was a sign of origin. The Courtroom discovered that the second HUGZ denims misrepresented, via the HUGZ get-up, that there was a connection in the midst of commerce with Freddy.

Freddy was capable of present proof as to the harm attributable to the HUGZ denims, together with complaints from distributors and social media commercials from former distributors of Freddy who now inventory the HUGZ denims as an alternative. Freddy additionally offered an e mail from a long-term buyer, asking if it had rebranded its product from WR.UP to HUGZ.

An attention-grabbing and distinctive aspect on this case was post-sale confusion. Put up-sale confusion happens the place a shopper is aware of they’re buying a ‘knock-off’ once they purchase the products, however they achieve this as a result of they need different shoppers to consider that the denims are related to Freddy and its merchandise. Put up-sale confusion is actionable as a matter of commerce mark legislation (Datacard Company v Eagle Applied sciences Restricted [2011] EWHC 244 (Pat)) however shouldn’t be a generally pleaded in passing off.

The Courtroom struggled to seek out cases the place this query had been thought-about, and referenced as an alternative a choice by the Excessive Courtroom of New Zealand in Levi Strauss and Co and Anor v Kimbyr Investments Restricted, which acknowledged:

“The entire level of this explicit mark is to take care of the connection between the products and the proprietor through the lifetime of the garment after sale. There is no such thing as a motive in precept why this goal must be annoyed. It’s a professional and basic use of a mark. If the Kimbyr argument is right the aim of this mark can be negated. A defendant might insert a intentionally deceptive mark on a garment, be sure that there was no confusion at level of sale, however proceed to realize the advantage of its unethical buying and selling by arguing that the confusion occurred after sale solely. This sort of outcome would reduce towards the clear goal of the commerce marks laws which is to help using commerce marks to differentiate the products of 1 producer or dealer from others and to minimise public confused.”

Deputy Choose Stone discovered on the proof that HUGZ denims proceed to make misrepresentations to shoppers every time they’re worn, and that that misrepresentation damages Freddy. As such, the decide discovered passing off at level of sale and post-sale.

Designs

There was a small however attention-grabbing be aware in relation to unregistered designs that additionally arose on this case. This was that the form of the denims ‘when worn’ shouldn’t be a sound design and can’t be used for enforcement. Freddy tried to say that Hugz had additionally infringed one among their unregistered designs representing when the denims are being worn. The decide discovered that the form of a pair of denims “when worn” shouldn’t be a protectable design, as a result of it’s a form that’s infinitely variable relying on the actual particular person sporting the denims.

To cite to Deputy Choose:

“the wearers’ buttocks can be lifted and separated, but when these buttocks are of differing shapes, the resultant shapes of the denims “when worn” will differ”.

All the opposite unregistered designs infringement claims below the case have been accepted and upheld.

Key Takeaways

The brand new and attention-grabbing improvement of the legislation of passing off in relation to post-sale confusion might signify an enormous victory for trend manufacturers, whose clothes are sometimes imitated for the only function of passing them off as ‘much like’ a well-known unique. Trend manufacturers might have a further software of their arsenal to assist fight copycat designs, though passing off is tough to show, manufacturers may gain advantage from this widening of potential confusion.

Manufacturers should additionally keep in mind that care have to be taken if making an attempt to depend on an unregistered design when being worn or utilized by a person.

The First HUGZ Denims are proven on the proper and differ from the Second HUGZ Denims in relation to the seam, proven left.