Company with similar name?

[smooth]

I probably did sorry, :hug: - my fault for getting fired up by what I perceive to be a huge injustice for poor Cabinkel.

ah it happens to everyone especially when we are passionate about something!:hug:

Re other posts on TM etc, would a company really want to TM their business name if that website had already been taken regardless of their financial status. So if sassylashes.co.uk/com was taken by Cabinkel why would someone want to use that as their business name and TM it if they didn't have the website address to use? :?: Silly sassy whatever company they are trying to fight you for your name.

Cabinkel, dig your heels in, fight your corner and have enough amunition to fight the dirty little scoundrels back. You have everyone on here fighting your cause, especially our Ruth bless her.

Keep us posted hun x

 

[Ruth Mills]

ah it happens to everyone especially when we are passionate about something!:hug:

Re other posts on TM etc, would a company really want to TM their business name if that website had already been taken regardless of their financial status. So if sassylashes.co.uk/com was taken by Cabinkel why would someone want to use that as their business name and TM it if they didn't have the website address to use? :?: Silly sassy whatever company they are trying to fight you for your name.

Cabinkel, dig your heels in, fight your corner and have enough amunition to fight the dirty little scoundrels back. You have everyone on here fighting your cause, especially our Ruth bless her.

Keep us posted hun x

No, the company who I think it is that Cabinkel is dealing with have the website sassysalon.co.uk - I don't think they have a particular interest in the "lashes" bit - it's more the "sassy" bit that I think they're objecting to - and that Cabinkel's site is promoting beauty services (trademark class 44) - so is in the same type of business as one of the classes they have trademarked.

Incidentally their original domain registration for sassysalon.co.uk dates back to December 2007 - whereas Cabinkel's domain name sassylashes.co.uk was registered in October 2009. The company with the "sassy" trademark was incorporated in February 2007 according to the Companies House website, although Cabinkel was using the name "sassy lashes" before then (even though she didn't have a website back then).

 

[smooth]

No, the company who I think it is that Cabinkel is dealing with have the website sassysalon.co.uk - I don't think they have a particular interest in the "lashes" bit - it's more the "sassy" bit that I think they're objecting to - and that Cabinkel's site is promoting beauty services (trademark class 44) - so is in the same type of business as one of the classes they have trademarked.

Incidentally their original domain registration for sassysalon.co.uk dates back to December 2007 - whereas Cabinkel's domain name sassylashes.co.uk was registered in October 2009. The company with the "sassy" trademark was incorporated in February 2007 according to the Companies House website, although Cabinkel was using the name "sassy lashes" before then (even though she didn't have a website back then).

Oh right, I didn't read all the posts to see whether websites were referred to sorry my fault so I just picked some random web domain names. That'll teach me not to read previous posts won't it? :ox

 

[Ruth Mills]

Oh right, I didn't read all the posts to see whether websites were referred to sorry my fault so I just picked some random web domain names. That'll teach me not to read previous posts won't it? :ox

No problem, I think we're tied on having done that once during this thread now aren't we :green:

:hug:

 

[smooth]

No problem, I think we're tied on having done that once during this thread now aren't we :green:

:hug:

Just once? :lol:

 

[lisa.sharrock]

I'm liking Lynne's advice of sending poo in a jiffy bag!! hahaha Good call Lynne! :lick:

 

[Ruth Mills]

I'm liking Lynne's advice of sending poo in a jiffy bag!! hahaha Good call Lynne! :lick:

It's a nice idea in jest, but could be seen as sending offensive substances in the post - which might even leave you open to criminal proceedings if they were able to trace the sender.

Although it did remind me of the following (perhaps apocryphal) complaint letter that I read some years ago and just *had* to do a quick Google to find... Actual Complaint Letter to Ntl

 

[Lynne Baker]

Indeed - twas just a joke, but mighty tempting, eh?!

 

[Ruth Mills]

Indeed - twas just a joke, but mighty tempting, eh?!

Hmm, I wonder if anyone on here has a pet dog or cat called "Sassy" who could help??? :green:

 

[Ruth Mills]

My research has now shown that Cabinkel is not the only salon to have received communication concerning an alleged trademark infringement for using the word "Sassy".

So I would place a bet that the majority of "Sassy" hair/beauty businesses (at least those who appear on a Google search) would have received a similar letter to Cabinkel.

I await to hear from any others with great interest.

 

[chocolatepickle]

so now there is more then one, is it worth 'getting together' with these other businesses and fighting this together- if there is more support for each other they may be less giving in to these bully's?

 

[Ruth Mills]

so now there is more then one, is it worth 'getting together' with these other businesses and fighting this together- if there is more support for each other they may be less giving in to these bully's?

That's the plan

 

[Ruth Mills]

One of the dictionary definitions of "Sassy" is "Lively, bold and full of spirit; cheeky" - and that's exactly the attitude to fight back with if you ask me

 

[Ruth Mills]

Apparently it's possible to apply to get a trademark invalidated, if:

(a) you think the trade mark is one which is not unique to the proprietor and should be free for you (or anyone) in that line of trade to use; or

(b) you own a trade mark (which does not have to be registered itself) which is the same as, or similar to, the proprietor’s trade mark.

As per the ipo.gov.uk website again, Intellectual Property Office - Invalidation

You just need to fill in this form, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm26i.pdf and send a fee of £200

It's considered good form to warn the trademark owner that you intend to start invalidation procedures against their trademark though.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/invalidtm.pdf has more information.

Generally the party who loses has to pay court costs - provided certain procedures have been followed - these are listed in the PDF above - which although in the region of a couple of thousand pounds or so, do not seem especially astronomical.

 

[silverbird9t9]

It strikes me that a small, newly established salon would not have the wherewithall to start procedings against all of the businesses it has so far threatened. However, those other businesses could perhaps join forces and share the cost of a solicitor's letter advising them of the possible financial consequences of having someone attempt to challenge THEIR trademark.

Also, how many times do people say 'you will be hearing from my solicitor' when they have no intention of following through. I think they are bluffing.

 

[Ruth Mills]

It strikes me that a small, newly established salon would not have the wherewithall to start procedings against all of the businesses it has so far threatened. However, those other businesses could perhaps join forces and share the cost of a solicitor's letter advising them of the possible financial consequences of having someone attempt to challenge THEIR trademark.

Also, how many times do people say 'you will be hearing from my solicitor' when they have no intention of following through. I think they are bluffing.

That is what I'm thinking; I have actually written to every UK-based hair/beauty salon that I could find on Google and yell.com to ask if they had received a letter from someone threatening them with an injunction for allegedly infringing their trademark (without mentioning the name or contact details of the company in question) and asking them if they would be interested in collaborating with each other to challenge the allegation if they had received this letter from the company in question.

Which is taking up a fair bit of my time and has also cost me in stamps, envelopes, paper, laser printer toner, etc, but this is an issue that I feel very strongly about, being a small business owner myself.

I have also spent time on researching trademark law and the sort of action that someone could take to challenge a trademark registration, and do feel that many of the other "Sassy" businesses could well have a good case to defend the use of the name "Sassy" in their businesses and possibly even apply to the Intellectual Property Office to have the trademark registration in question invalidated.

 

[hippy-chick]

I wonder what this new company is seriously trying to achieve?

They also seem to be using scare-tactics, assuming that most small businesses will just roll over. It takes one person like yourself Ruth to expose what they are doing as they really don't expect anyone to do this.

Are they just wanting people to stop using the word SASSY in titles or is their an ulterior motive, ie pay us a fee and we will waver it?

I did a quick search on my biz name on google when I first started out and their was just a handful of people using one of the words.

 

[Ruth Mills]

I wonder what this new company is seriously trying to achieve?

They also seem to be using scare-tactics, assuming that most small businesses will just roll over. It takes one person like yourself Ruth to expose what they are doing as they really don't expect anyone to do this.

Are they just wanting people to stop using the word SASSY in titles or is their an ulterior motive, ie pay us a fee and we will waver it?

I did a quick search on my biz name on google when I first started out and their was just a handful of people using one of the words.

Well, it became apparent that they had contacted Cabinkel via email after finding her website. For this to have happened, it was therefore logical to assume that they would have been doing what the Guardian refers to as "Google dredging" - doing a Google search for everyone in your line of business who uses the same name - and that consequently one could also assume that they would have also targeted other salons of that name on Google. This would therefore also mean that by writing to salons of the same name who come up on Google, one should also be able to find other people who would have received similar communication from this company. Then, with their permission, one would be able to put all the people who had been targeted in touch with one another, to discuss the situation, compare notes and perhaps formulate a collaborative action that would carry more weight than several individual defences.

So far, this hypothesis has proven true as I have already heard from another salon who has been targeted.

 

[Ruth Mills]

Right, that's another "Sassy" who has just replied to an email I sent out on Friday night last week - so that's at least 3 businesses they have targeted now (Cabinkel and 2 others)...

 

[Tess Warwick]

I was wondering about this, too. What on earth are they after? It seems a lot of effort on their part to try and get someone to change their business name.

There is another salon about 10 miles away from mine with the same name. We very occasionally get phone calls for them - as I'm sure they do for us. I have their number and just pass it on. I have no problem doing this and their business doesn't affect mine. C'est la vie

I wonder what this new company is seriously trying to achieve?

They also seem to be using scare-tactics, assuming that most small businesses will just roll over. It takes one person like yourself Ruth to expose what they are doing as they really don't expect anyone to do this.

Are they just wanting people to stop using the word SASSY in titles or is their an ulterior motive, ie pay us a fee and we will waver it?

I did a quick search on my biz name on google when I first started out and their was just a handful of people using one of the words.