double_arrow
Article Archive

double_arrow Ask an Expert

reCAPTCHA

What Our Customers Say...

5.0
Based on 101 reviews
powered by Google
26dragon76 profile picture
26dragon76
15:31 23 Jul 25
A truly exceptional experience – thank you Albright IP!

I want to personally thank Charlie Heal , Emily Fox, Cara McAtee, and the entire team at Albright IP for their hard work, dedication, and professionalism in helping me submit my first ever patent: the Baffer Ball fire suppression system.

From the very first meeting, Charlie and Emily made everything feel clear, comfortable, and respectful. They listened carefully to my ideas, even though I’m not from a technical or legal background – I’m a painter and decorator by trade. But they believed in my vision and treated it with such care and seriousness that I felt truly supported as an inventor.

Over several months, we worked closely by email and phone. Charlie and the team guided me step by step to build one of the strongest, clearest, and most professional patent drafts I could have hoped for. The claims they wrote are powerful, and the language used shows how deeply they understood my invention. They didn’t just file a document – they helped shape a legacy.

Charlie, even though he is young, is incredibly professional and experienced. I am amazed at how he managed such a complex project with kindness, patience, and precision. Emily and Cara were also fantastic throughout.

This was not just paperwork – this was my dream since childhood. And Albright IP helped me make that dream real.

💬 I look forward to working with them again on future patents. The Baffer Ball is just the beginning – and I am proud that Albright IP was there from Day 1.

Thank you so much again — from the bottom of my heart.
— Morteza
Jilna Shah profile picture
Jilna Shah
07:13 13 Jul 25
I've been working with Marc Maidment on pursuing a patent for my business, and I honestly couldn’t ask for a better attorney. As someone with no experience with the patent process and how it works, Marc takes the time to explain everything clearly and thoroughly, breaking down complex legal processes in a way that is easy to understand.

He’s not only incredibly knowledgeable, but also warm and approachable. No question has ever felt too small, and he genuinely cares about the success of my business. I’d highly recommend Marc to anyone looking for a dedicated, trustworthy, and skilled patent attorney.
Jon Baker profile picture
Jon Baker
15:23 19 Mar 25
Albright IP have been brilliant from my first call all the way through to submitting our Patent Application. I look forward to working with them on future IP projects. Jon Baker - Design 360 Ltd
See All Reviews


double_arrow
Need a Product Designer?


double_arrow
Helpful Tips

Do I have to identify the designer?
It is possible to waive the name of the designer when filing a European Community Design, but you should be sure that you have the rights to the design

Case law update – Specsavers v Asda

by | Dec 9, 2014

The long running dispute between Specsavers and Asda stores has reached a conclusion. The Court of Justice of the European Union in its appeal judgement has ruled in favour of Specsavers on the thorny issue of whether use of the figurative ‘specsavers’ mark (A) constituted use of the registered wordless logo mark (B):

A: GPgJcD2

 

B:

This conflict began in October 2009 when Asda launched a marketing campaign for their optician’s brand. It was alleged by Specsavers that this campaign infringed a number of its community trademark registrations. Specsavers sued for trademark infringement and at first instance the High court held that no infringement by Asda had occurred and in fact, revoked Specsavers’s figurative registrations on the grounds of non-use. However, this initial victory for Asda was short lived and after referring some questions on points of Law to the CJEU, the Court of Appeal subsequently overturned the judgement of the court of first instance.

In the Court of Appeal [Specsavers & ors v Asda Stores [2014] EWCA Civ1294] Lord Justice Kitchin confirmed that use of the ‘Specsavers’ green figurative mark shown at (A) above, did in fact constitute use of the registered black figurative mark at (B) above, since the differences between the trademark as registered and as used were not such as to alter  the distinctive character of the  registered trademark. Essentially, in order for use of the ‘Specsavers’ green figurative trademark to be held to constitute use of the black figurative registered mark, the elements of the registered trademark (i.e., overall shape of the same) must be distinctive enough within the trademark in use so that it was sufficient to designate the origin of the goods or services in question.

Specsavers produced a wealth of evidence at trial to show that the basic shape of its registered logo had acquired distinctiveness for its goods and services in the relevant market. This included evidence showing that no competitors used a logo with a similar overall shape to that used by Specsavers, and that internal documents from Asda described the potential logo, shown at (C), below, as a “rip-off”, “highly recognisable” and “the Specsavers logo”:

C:IDFK4oE

Finally, Lord Justice Kitchin also accepted evidence for Specsavers that, from a distance the relevant consumer associated the overall shape of the green overlapping ellipses with them, and as designating the Specsavers brand.

Initially this reasoning might appear to be fairly dubious application on the basis that it is hard to imagine that the overall shape of the black figurative trademark registered by Specsavers could serve to designate the goods as those of Specsavers’s in the absence of the other two highly recognisable elements of the trademark in actual use, i.e., the word element ‘Specsavers’ together with the green overlapping ellipses. However, the overall shape of the figurative trademark in use was the same as that of the registered trademark, and since the figurative mark was filed in black it was without colour limitation; therefore, use of overlapping ellipses in green colour was held to constitute use of the black figurative trademark.

As stated by Lord Justice Kitchin the reasoning in this case is unlikely to be applicable in the majority of cases involving use of less distinctive logos which lack the strong reputation and distinctiveness of the Specsavers brand. In fact, Lord justice Kitchin explicitly states in his judgement that, in general, ‘it is unlikely that the background of a mark will be perceived by the average consumer as an indication of origin’.

ASK AN ATTORNEY

reCAPTCHA