Sunday, 22 April 2018

The Prick Case. Titter Permitted


(1) HENRY MARTINEZ T/A PRICK

(2) HENRY HATE STUDIO & PRICK TATTOO PARLOUR LONDON LIMITED



Claimants

- and -

PRICK ME BABY ONE MORE TIME LIMITED T/A PRICK

GYNELLE LEON



Defendants

Legal proceedings are not funny. They are serious matters for the courts and the parties and are not intended as entertainment for the general public or for anyone else. But very, very, very occasionally there may just be a tiny (if you will forgive me) feature about a case that will raise a titter from you and for which you may be forgiven so long as the titter is not emitted in court. May I suggest that one such case was The Prick Case * which was decided last week in London's Intellectual Property Court.

The case was what is known as a 'passing off' claim involving a tattoo business in Shoreditch which had been set up in 2001 under the trading name of Prick Tattoos (the late Amy Winehouse was a client) and a retail cactus and succulent plant business which had been set up in Dalston in 2016 under the trading name of Prick. The tattoo business owners alleged that the cactus business could be confused with the tattoo business. You may have thought that such an argument would be difficult to sustain and you would be right. The claim was dismissed. 

* [2018] EWHC 776 (IPEC)