Intellectual Property: Public image limited
Following a local council's clash with Nike, Gregor Grant argues that public bodies should use intellectual property rights to protect their brand
October 04, 2006 at 08:03 PM
5 minute read
Earlier this month, a settlement was agreed between Nike and Hackney Council when the sports clothing and equipment manufacturer agreed to pay the local authority £300k after using the council's logo without permission.
The settlement attracted much media interest, primarily because it was a small public organisation taking on a major international corporation in a dispute over intellectual property (IP).
Nike had used the council's logo on a range of merchandise that was sold around the world. The spur for doing so was the reputation of Hackney Marshes as a Mecca for amateur football. Nike wanted to associate its products with the heritage and culture of Hackney Marshes.
Hackney Marshes is a geographical location and, as a name, is in the public domain. But Nike also used the council's logo. It was this that led Hackney to threaten legal action against Nike for infringement of copyright in the logo design.
Some sections of the media have been puzzled as to why a public organisation should view lorryloads of free exposure as detrimental to its image. Many football supporters will remember the television commercial that Nike filmed on Hackney Marshes in the 1990s that featured Eric Cantona and Ian Wright. No doubt the council welcomed such a compliment to the marshes, but the use of the council's logo on merchandise that also bears the Nike logo was another matter.
The Hackney logo – a stylised 'H' – is used in various formats to promote a multitude of services, including sporting events, within the borough and the council felt that it would be misleading for it to appear on merchandise from a commercial company. Residents might think the council was endorsing the products, which is not council policy.
The council therefore felt that this use by Nike would cause confusion. Other confusion is also possible, as came to light during the case when one Hackney resident wrote to the council following a visit to Spain, where the branded goods were on sale, in the belief that retailers were selling goods that had been stolen from the local authority.
As this case was settled out of court, it sets no precedent, but it should encourage other public organisations to consider their intellectual property (IP) rights more carefully. Major sporting and music events can regenerate the image of an area rapidly, even turning it into a brand, and public organisations need to ensure that they are able to control their own IP in the face of it becoming commercially interesting.
Nobody can effectively trademark a place, but if a certain organisation has a strong identity within an area that is popular or becomes so, its logos, slogans and designs could be imitated by third parties for profit.
Promotional materials
The Hackney case centred around the threat of legal action for infringement of copyright. Public bodies should seek to establish that they hold the copyright over their logos and promotional materials. Copyright is an automatic right in the UK but it may not initially be clear who it belongs to in law.
Like any other IP, it can be bought, sold or licensed. Very often, where copyright has not been formally transferred, it will rest with the original designer. It is important, therefore, to establish that a copyright ownership really does belong to the organisation.
Securing and holding a registered trademark offers a much stronger form of protection. Applying for a trademark on a logo or advertising slogan is often straightforward and is not prohibitively costly. If it can be proved that infringement of a trademark caused a significant loss to the owner, then substantial damages may be awarded.
For a trademark to afford protection or to substantiate loss, however, the mark must be in use alongside commercial activities. Many public organisations are subject to strict legislation on trading in the UK, making it difficult to make substantial profit from merchandise. It is therefore necessary for public entities that obtain a trademark to ensure that they trade enough to maintain the validity of the mark while also adhering to the restrictions placed on them by central government.
In certain instances, where neither trademark nor copyright can be established, but a logo has been in use for a long period of time, it may be possible to prevent its use by other parties by using common law rights. An organisation can bring a claim for 'passing off' against parties imitating its IP. However, the chances of success are more limited than where clear IP rights exist.
IP is not just for the world of commerce. The public sector needs to ensure that it makes the most of the IP system as a tool to protect its hard work in establishing a brand for its services. After all, where public money is used to promote those services, organisations have some responsibility to protect such investment and prevent potential confusion in the public's mind.
Gregor Grant is a partner at Marks & Clerk and represented the London Borough of Hackney in its dispute with Nike.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWill a Market Dominated by Small- to Mid-Cap Deals Give Rise to This Dark Horse US Firm in China?
Big Law Sidelined as Asian IPOs in New York Dominated by Small Cap Listings
X-odus: Why Germany’s Federal Court of Justice and Others Are Leaving X
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250