Retrospective - Groundless Threats in Intellectual Property Law

A big aspect of intellectual property law is the possible threat of infringement, even when you might not know it. With strong legal protective measures comes a great deal of responsibility in wielding that capability, especially in the light of competition. IP can be used to stifle those aiming to compete with you, as well as those who blatantly want to benefit from your hard-work and intellectual output. A balance has to therefore be struck, and certain legal tethers have been placed to restrict the unwarranted use of IP rights without due cause. Groundless threat provisions exist in relation to all registrable IP rights (trademarks, patents and designs) under the Patents Act 1977, Trade Marks Act 1994, Registered Designs Act 1949 and Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. What amounts to a groundless threat is not entirely clear under all of the provisions above (which act fairly similarly to each other), however the High Court endeavored to answer this at the cusp of the 21st century.

The case of Brain v Ingledew Brown Bennington & Garrett (No 3), decided in 1997, dealt with Patrick John Brain, who, in the early 90s, set up a consulting business in an effort to exploit new technologies and inventions all over the world, particularly in the Far East. Upon meeting Jørgen Jensen, the Head of Chemistry at Risø National Labratory (the second defendant), a Danish research company, the pair struck a deal to utilize a patented technology developed at Risø by a number of individuals called "Wet Oxdiation" (e.g. patents US5053142A and EP0284754) in foreign markets. The pair started a company called Intox Corporation Limited, and successfully marketed the process to a company in Canada, which included passing on technical documents attained by Mr. Jensen. Risø found out about Intox Corporations' activities, and initiated court proceedings against Mr. Jensen in Denmark. During the proceedings Risø also instructed UK lawyers, Ingledew Brown Bennington & Garrett, to pursue Intox Corporation. Mr. Brain argued that, in correspondence between him and lawyers at Ingledew, several threats were included, and as a result, the projects incorporating the above technology did not come to fruition, causing him a great deal of monetary loss. He then initiated proceedings for groundless threats under the Patents Act 1977.

Under the above Act, in section 70: "...a person (whether or not the proprietor of, or entitled to any right in, a patent) by circulars, advertisements or otherwise threatens another person with proceedings for any infringement of a patent, a person aggrieved by the threats (whether or not he is the person to whom the threats are made) may... bring proceedings in the court against the person making the threats".

Rory was aggrieved by threats made in relation to his cap

Justice Laddie, handing down the judgment of the High Court, had to therefore first determine whether Mr. Brain was a 'person aggrieved', allowing him to bring forth his claim. For a person to be considered as such there has to be clear damage, not just hurt feelings. As Justice Laddie described it: "...a trader's chosen route to exploitation of his product or process is interfered with by the threat, that is damage in the broad sense and makes him a person aggrieved". Reliance on the threat, and subsequent action causing detriment, is key, not just annoyance or mere displeasure. Even if loss is prevented or mitigated in the event of a threat does not mean the person cannot be seen as a person aggrieved. What the person has to show is "...that his commercial interests are or are likely to be adversely affected in a real as opposed to a fanciful or minimal way". The Court saw that, as the threats were made to Mr. Brain directly, that he would fall under the definition of a 'person aggrieved'.

Justice Laddie then had to assess what the meaning of the letters were, and whether they actually constituted a threat. This assessment has to be done "...in accordance with how they would be understood by an ordinary reader", and what the initial impression would be to a reasonable addressee. In the light of the three letters discussed as a whole, Justice Laddie saw that their purpose would be reasonably understood as a threat to initiate patent proceedings.

Arguments as to the available defence under section 70(4), preventing any proceedings under section 70 for "...a threat to bring proceedings for an infringement alleged to consist of making or importing
a product for disposal or of using a process" (defined in section 60), failed, as the correspondence targets a much broader base of infringement, not just the ones exempted under section 60. Justice Laddie found that the defendants had made groundless threats against Mr. Brain, and ordered an inquiry into damages.

The law in relation to groundless threats has since moved on, and more leeway has been given in terms of bringing information as to any existing IP rights to the attention of the potentially infringing party. The Patents Act 2004 made significant changes to section 70, however the above does still apply to all groundless threat cases, giving the courts the basis for their determination for a cause of action under these provisions.

Passing Off on Persons - Rihanna Wins Appeal Case

If reality TV has taught something to most individuals is that personality, and personas especially, are valuable. This, along with other celebrities, musicians and actors, illustrates an interesting aspect of humanity; a self-imposed value on the eccentric and the unusual, making people and their respective persons more than salable. People often buy things based on association, be it quality, notoriety or just through the endorsement of the right person. Because of this there is a huge amount of value in the right brand or good being associated with the right person, even if that image is conjured up through more 'nefarious' means, i.e. through the illusion of association or endorsement, which can potentially damage the 'brand' of an individual. After a recent case, this writer was inspired to answer one question: can you pass off on a person, not just a brand?

The case in question was Fenty & Ors v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd, decided in the Court of Appeal in the early days of 2015, which dealt with the sale of a simple article of clothing; a t-shirt. Topshop, a well-known store for all that is clothing, sold a t-shirt printed with the image of Robyn Fenty - more commonly known as Rihanna. The image itself was one of her posing, taken during the shooting of a music video for one of her songs. The picture was taken by a third-party photographer, and not commissioned by Rihanna herself, allowing the photographer to sell the rights to the image to Topshop, which he promptly had done, leading to its use in the aforementioned garment. Rihanna subsequently objected to this use, and initiated proceedings against Topshop for the image's use, citing an infringement of her rights, and claiming its use can confuse consumers to believe she endorses the shirt, amounting to passing off (more on which can be found here).

The starting-point for the discussion surrounding the law was set out by Lord Justice Kitchin: "There is in English law no "image right" or "character right" which allows a celebrity to control the use of his or her name or image". In the United States, under various State legislation, an individual's personality or persona can be protected; something that isn't protectable per say under UK legislation.

Some faces are just made for t-shirts

Nevertheless, the protection offered under passing off can potentially extend to individuals, at least on a prima facie application of the requisite elements: there has to be goodwill associated with that individual; a misrepresentation as to that goodwill applying to goods and/or services not associated with that individual; and actual or potential damage to said goodwill. Should Topshop have sufficiently misrepresented a connection with Rihanna, they could be liable under passing off. To put things in more simplistic terms, as described by Lord Justice Kitchin: "...it was [Rihanna's] case that the misrepresentation that she was associated with the t-shirt made it more attractive and so played a material part in the decision of the public to buy it".

Lord Kitchin turned to the earlier decision in Edmund Irvine Tidswell Ltd v Talksport Ltd, where Justice Laddie formulated two criteria that needed to be established for a successful case in passing off in a false endorsement matter: "It follows from the views expressed above that there is nothing which prevents an action for passing off succeeding in a false endorsement case. However, to succeed, the burden on the claimant includes a need to prove at least two, interrelated facts. First, that at the time of the acts complained of he had a significant reputation or goodwill. Second, that the actions of the defendant gave rise to a false message which would be understood by a not insignificant section of his market that his goods have been endorsed, recommended or approved of by the claimant".

Whether the public perceive the image of Rihanna as an endorsement or not is very much irrelevant, As long as an image of a potential endorser is used, the use can amount to a misrepresentation to that individual's endorsement of that product. This, however, does not allow a celebrity to unilaterally prevent all uses of their images, but is an assessment that has to be made in every instance and relating to every specific use separately. Topshop had attempted to use Rihanna's fame to their advantage through prior campaigns and contests, clearly leveraging her image to boost their sales. This does not amount to passing off itself, but is a contributing factor usable by the courts. In the end the Court saw that Topshop were indeed liable under passing off, and prevented the further sale of the above t-shirt.

While this case is not a landmark one, it serves an interesting curiosity in the world of celebrity and marketing, and showcases that even images can carry weight and value. Next time you print an image of your loved ones on custom-made t-shirts, think twice.

Source: BBC