Trade mark issue & Sole trader

L

lozza

Registered User
Messages
47
Hi All

its been a while since I posted here, but I hope you can help.

My logo is currently under application with the Patents office, a large multinational company are objecting to it, I don't think I am infringing on them in anyway and have reduced the classes I was applying for to ensure that I wasn't infringing on them.

Anyway they currently have an extension to file evidence under rule 20(1) but a throw away comment from a family member is stressing me out. I am operating as a sole trader and he told me I should switch to a limited company asap so they can't sue me. Would they sue me? I am totally stressed thinking our family home is going to go etc. Sorry if I am being Naïve but my business in a small online business run from home, a business which I have yet to take a salary from as I am still building it. There is no way I could afford to go up against this company.

Any advice appreciated!
 
But is it likely that they would do you think? Money is very tight right now and it seems a very drastic thing to do for a business that is already struggling..
 
No-one here can tell you whether an unnamed company is going to sue you or not. Either change your logo, incorporate if you can afford it, or take the risk.
 
dahamsta said:
No-one here can tell you whether an unnamed company is going to sue you or not. Either change your logo, incorporate if you can afford it, or take the risk.
Click to expand...
A logo can be a very powerful addition to the company therefore changing it is not as easy as one thinks, because your logo tells a story about your company. Its best talk to a patent expert, if it is that important
 
dahamsta said:
No-one here can tell you whether an unnamed company is going to sue you or not. Either change your logo, incorporate if you can afford it, or take the risk.
Click to expand...

I know and appreciate the point. The logo is not the issue its the name of my website that is the issue. We contain part of the same word and although we sell in the same sector it is completely different areas.

A patent attourney is the best option, just funds are so low
 
dahamsta said:
incorporate if you can afford it, or take the risk.
Click to expand...

As was mentioned above, incorporation doesn't protect a sole trader from (1) being sued; (2) being held liable - least of all in a dispute with a multinational company.
 
As an example, see below:

Someone uses Boca-Cola for a new drinks product. This would be in conflict with coca-cola because of the use of the word 'cola'.

Both use the same word 'cola', now if they are two different companies then you could easily see that there would be a conflict between the two, in other words one company would be riding on the wave of the other more successful company etc.

This merely is just an example, but I think you get the picture.
 
T McGibney said:
As was mentioned above, incorporation doesn't protect a sole trader from (1) being sued; (2) being held liable - least of all in a dispute with a multinational company.
Click to expand...

Eh? Mentioned by who? And how is an incorporated company a sole trader?
 
Paddy199 said that it limits liability. You said that it doesn't protect them from being liable. These statements are completely at odds with each other.

On the 2nd point, the sole trader can't be sued if he incorporates, the company will. They'd be two completely different entities, and the entity that would be sued would have limited liability.
 
Thanks all for your input. I think I need to speak with a legal person on this. Anyone know of someone who would give me 10mins of their time???
 
dahamsta said:
Paddy199 said that it limits liability. You said that it doesn't protect them from being liable. These statements are completely at odds with each other.
Click to expand...

It would be a sad world if we have to agree with each other all the time. :)

dahamsta said:
On the 2nd point, the sole trader can't be sued if he incorporates.
Click to expand...

Of course he can. He's already in business as a sole trader and his logo is already under application with the Patents office.

Sadly, a business person can't eliminate business risks by simply forming a company.
 
They certainly can't eliminate all business risks but they can reduce ones exposure. Why are personal guarantees so important now - because creditors can't get at the shareholders. Unless they have given PGs, retention of title or the directors have acted fraudulently / recklesses and therefore outside their fiduicary duties.

From memory, a legal action cannot be taken against a company thats why an individual from the company has to be a named defendant. However, the liability rests with the company somehow. This is best addressed by a legal person.

But as you all say, he is currently set up as a sole trader and has no protection whatsoever at the moment.
 
Paddy199 said:
From memory, a legal action cannot be taken against a company thats why an individual from the company has to be a named defendant. However, the liability rests with the company somehow. This is best addressed by a legal person.
Click to expand...

All well and good Paddy, but I don't see how this is at all relevant to the OP's situation?

Are you saying that if I invent a fizzy drink and call it Boca Cola, I can't be sued if I form a company? That makes no sense to me.
 
T McGibney said:
All well and good Paddy, but I don't see how this is at all relevant to the OP's situation?

Are you saying that if I invent a fizzy drink and call it Boca Cola, I can't be sued if I form a company? That makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

He should definitely get out of the sole trade setup and incorporate. And yes I am saying that as an individual shareholder, your liability is limited to your subscribed capital. There not called private limited companies for nothing. And remember, a company is a seperate legal identidy. As I previously said, I do think a named individual does have to be named as a defendant on behalf of the company for some reason or another. A legal person can clarify this.

I can't see why this business, incl. the website and logos cannot be transferred to a corporate structure and reduce this persons exposure.
 
But if the multinational company becomes aware that the existence of the logo predated the existence of the company (meaning that he, rather than the company, developed it), won't they be able to take action against him (for developing the logo) in addition to any action they might take against the company (for using it)?
 
T McGibney said:
But if the multinational company becomes aware that the existence of the logo predated the existence of the company (meaning that he, rather than the company, developed it), won't they be able to take action against him (for developing the logo) in addition to any action they might take against the company (for using it)?
Click to expand...

But how can they prove causation of losses for just developing it? I doubt they could have a substantial claim here.

However, if he is using it and making profits, there could be a substantial claim here. I would rather this element in a corporate structure. And remember, proving causation is one hell of a task.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top