Karen Millen - lessons from an SPA (Brands & IP Newsnotes - issue 3)
23 October 2016
Karen Millen, founder of the Karen Millen fashion brand has lost a High Court challenge to use her own name for homeware in the US and China.
In 2004, Karen sold her shares in the Karen Millen business to an Icelandic consortium. The share purchase agreement (“SPA”) contained a number of restrictive covenants as to her future conduct.
In 2011, Karen was ready to start her next fashion business under the name “Karen” and announced the plan in the press. This led to a lengthy dispute with the consortium that was settled in 2015. That settlement prevented Karen from using KAREN or KAREN MILLEN but it only covered the UK and the EU, not the rest of the world.
Whilst negotiating the settlement, on-going disputes in relation to the US and China had already arisen and court action was underway in which Karen sought a number of negative declarations from the court including that use of her name for homeware in the US would not breach the SPA.
The dispute centred on the interpretation and enforceability of the SPA. Whilst the Court found in Karen’s favour on some points, the key finding was that Karen could not use her own name in China and America for use on homeware items. In his judgment, Richard Meade QC also made a number of potentially useful comments in relation to the similarity between clothing and homeware businesses which may assist brand owners in future.
Founders of eponymous brands should think carefully when negotiating the sale of their business to ensure they are not unduly restricted in the future, particularly in the global market place.
This article was first published in the Brands & IP newsnotes publication - issue 3.
Related items
Brand owners gain another tool in the war against counterfeits (Brands & IP Newsnotes - issue 3)
23 October 2016Brand owners will welcome a ruling from the CJEU over the summer that an operator of a physical marketplace can be an ‘intermediary’ for the purposes of Article 11 of the IP Enforcement Directive.
IPO doesn’t see anything wrong with Specsavers’ trade mark (Brands & IP Newsnotes - issue 3)
23 October 2016Specsavers has managed to get its application to register “should’ve” (as in, “should’ve gone to Specsavers”) past the examination stage at the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO).
Can you tell what it is yet? (Brands & IP Newsnotes - issue 3)
23 October 2016Those looking to register shapes as trade marks have had a tough time of it recently. Attempts to register the shape of a Kit Kat, various bottles and a toothbrush have all recently failed in the UK and EU.
Karen Millen - lessons from an SPA (Brands & IP Newsnotes - issue 3)
23 October 2016Karen Millen, founder of the Karen Millen fashion brand has lost a High Court challenge to use her own name for homeware in the US and China.
Pay to play (Brands & IP Newsnotes - issue 3)
23 October 2016Over the last few years, the Ministry of Justice has sought to fill the gap in its funding through repeated increases to court fees.
Pretty fly for wi-fi (Brands & IP Newsnotes - issue 3)
23 October 2016Those who provide access to free wi-fi networks will be breathing a sigh of relief after the CJEU’s judgment this September that providers of such networks can benefit from protection under the E-Commerce Directive.
Hyperlinks – the saga continues (Brands & IP Newsnotes - issue 3)
23 October 2016The CJEU has issued another judgment on copyright infringement and hyperlinking; this time in relation to linking to unauthorised content.
And finally...Brexit (Brands & IP Newsnotes - issue 3)
23 October 2016Speculation about Brexit’s impact on intellectual property rights caused the UKIPO to release its guidance note “IP and Brexit: The Facts” in August.