When Urban Lettings was scouting round for a logo to reflect their area of operation –Battersea – the obvious answer was on their doorstep.
For ten years or so, the firm has happily used a while silhouette of the unmistakeable Battersea Power Station on everything from its website to its sales boards.
Just one problem: they didn’t register the logo. As so many logos aren’t.
However, when Battersea Power Station was sold to a consortium of developers, the Battersea Project Land Company, the new owners lost no time in applying to the UK Intellectual Property Office for a series of trademarks.
After they were registered, the consortium told Urban Lettings to remove the silhouette from its branding without delay.
In a stern legal letter, Urban Lettings was told that using the logo “constitutes a mis-representation that your lettings service are linked or emanating from BPLC and such use damages and detracts from BPLC’s reputation and goodwill”.
The story made the local Wandsworth Guardian and has since been picked up by a legal publication specialising in intellectual property, and the Huffington Post and the Telegraph.
The agents have now been besieged by law firms longing to have a crack at the Battersea Power Station owners. But as Urban Lettings founder Christian Walker says, you have to pick your battles, and this is not one he is prepared to take on.
However, he is facing a large bill: “This will not come cheap,” he says.
“We have to change the logo on our building, on all our products, the website and the company car. Our team is working on that now, but I expect it will probably cost a few thousand pounds.”
And the latest? The firm has asked the Battersea Project Land Company if it will contribute to the costs of removing the branding.
Personally, we think the developers come off badly in all this. Why not come to a much cleverer – and friendlier – arrangement with a reputable ARLA lettings firm that is on your doorstep when you are, after all, building a lot of flats that will undoubtedly be bought by investors?
http://urbanlettings.com/newsletter/battersea-power-station-registered-trademark/
.png)
.jpg)
Comments
They should see it as a wake up call as their current branding is pretty dated anyhow!.
Its a difficult one - they are not intentionally passing off - its just unlucky. There are many agents who use iconic buildings in some form or other. Will BPLC be hunting down what remains of Pink Floyd's album Animals?
I really think they are being picky. Urban are not in competition and its not as if they will be pinching business from BPLC even though the businesses may be classed in the same category. That said, they aren't competing for business and there is no damage if Urban make it clear they are in no way associated.
ARLA haven't been sued by Arla Foods yet, or perhaps they are just milking it.
I remember my old Friend JLH being sued by a newspaper group for his magazine title Docklands Review because they used the title in a suppliment and registered it. JLH fought them - and won.
I would suggest to them that a myriad of Lawyers have contacted me on a no win no fee basis, but rather than start a legal battle and waste money with an unpredictable outcome, perhaps BPLC would like to make a small contribution my my re-branding costs.
Just a thought. No one likes a bully - so possibly a chance for good PR all round.
There's potentially good "sympathy" PR for Urban here; good luck to them!
UL should not give in - it's 'honest concurrent use' - they should not have a problem being able to continue using it - registered or not.
Contact a patent agent asap.
Answer to last very good question?
Because with all due respect to urban Lettings and their ARLA membership BPLC will be using a much larger and international agent to market the development.