Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Hugo Boss claims Scouse slogan infringes copyright

The first rule of branding is that you can't copyright a general descriptor or a word in popular use. Quite why an organisation like Hugo Boss would need to be reminded of this remains one of life's great mysteries.
I remember when Sun Microsystems produced their programming languages Java and JavaBeans in the mid 90's they initially tried to copyright the name in areas outside of IT. Unsuccessfully for good reason.

I think their lawyers then set their sights a bit higher when they tried to inquire who owned that 'big, bright, yellow thing in the sky'
 
I remember when Sun Microsystems produced their programming languages Java and JavaBeans in the mid 90's they initially tried to copyright the name in areas outside of IT. Unsuccessfully for good reason.

I think their lawyers then set their sights a bit higher when they tried to inquire who owned that 'big, bright, yellow thing in the sky'
That would be Bulmers Cider.


 
Maybe cos HB have form for being precious cocks who let their legal mongs go full retard for the slightest thing that 'may' have some potential to infringe upon their trading. They tried it a few years ago with some wee retailer in south wales or something.
Got a link or will be something along the lines of a wee retailer either genuinely making a mistake by inadvertently copying them or a wee retailer taken the piss?
 
Got a link or will be something along the lines of a wee retailer either genuinely making a mistake by inadvertently copying them or a wee retailer taken the piss?



 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
They didn't, it was because the scouser put it on clothing and it could be taken as a Hugo Boss item

No it couldn't, the actionable element is the Hugo Boss strapline underneath the BOSS and how it relates to it.

1605194081297.png
 


They and Hugo boss came to an agreement. Their fault if they wanted to keep paying lawyers.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Couldn't what? Be taking as Hugo Boss clothing? It could do.

As someone who's had positioning, branding and copyright somewhere in their job description for thirty plus years, I don't agree with you. More to the point, the legal representatives of Hugo Boss clearly don't agree with you either.

You're talking about 'trading/passing off' and, without the strapline, it isn't.
 
Last edited:

ches

LE
As someone who's had positioning, branding and copyright somewhere in their job description for thirty plus years, I don't agree with you. More to the point, the legal representatives of Hugo Boss clearly don't agree with you either.

You're talking about 'trading/passing off' and, without the strapline, it isn't.

This. Unless they could prove the retailer was intending to push their product as HB or a derivative thereof they can take a flying fuck. HB are cunts & have been at this sort of thing for ages. Leave the little companies alone & concentrate on cleaning up their own house & image.
 
This. Unless they could prove the retailer was intending to push their product as HB or a derivative thereof they can take a flying ****. HB are cnuts & have been at this sort of thing for ages. Leave the little companies alone & concentrate on cleaning up their own house & image.
Yah boo a small retailer took on a big company automatically the big company was wrong. Power to the people etc etc
 
You don't think that HB deploying their army of legal eagles onto a small brewery over the word "Boss" is a bit disproportionate?
Big company uses their legal branch outrage?
If they were a small company would it have been ok?
 
Big company uses their legal branch outrage?
If they were a small company would it have been ok?

Not the point I was making. It was over one word, not a beer called "Hugo Boss bitter". It was a disproportionate response, IMHO - and one that smacked of bullying.
 
You don't think that HB deploying their army of legal eagles onto a small brewery over the word "Boss" is a bit disproportionate?


No less disproportionate than Harrods, threatening a small isolated Australian towns general store ( Think walkabout creek) for calling itself" Arrods" using the same colours and font on its shop front, and when the other store and shop owners heard about it, they all had the same signs made....Brilliant.
 
Not the point I was making. It was over one word, not a beer called "Hugo Boss bitter". It was a disproportionate response, IMHO - and one that smacked of bullying.
What was "disproportionate" about it? From the article, Hugo Boss said they would object to the name of the beer. The poor, plucky little brewery owners clearly decided to use the legal route to fight it. Then ended up agreeing with Hugo Boss to change the name slightly.
Might have saved some cash if theybdid that in the first place.
 
We always used the term boss when addressing our platoon commander back in the seventies. Sir was reserved for if someone of more senior rank was in earshot or on a rare appearance on the parade ground.

So there is precedence and Hugo and co can go and do one because as far it concerns us, the scousers can do what they like with it! :)
 

ches

LE
Missing the point as usual. It wasn't a case of a small retailer deliberately taking the piss & 'taking on' the big retailer. Unless it can be proved that a 'small' retailer is intending to deceive the customer that their product/service is actually that of the large retailer then there should be no need for the little guy to do anything. The retail pond is big enough to cater for lots of competition. HB were & are taking the piss & acting like bullies - they have form. The brand in questyion has no similarities to HB in any way shape or form & due to the fact the (chavvy) use of Boss, as a slang term, is limited to scouse usage & therefore has a very limited production run/customer base, the potential for the wee blokes kit to be seen as HB or close it is HB just being pricks & coming the billy big bollocks....yet again.

No one should have to kow tow to any other retailer unless the evidence of deliberate intent to deceive/defraud can be proved. Thats down to the legal team of the big guys to prove.
 
Missing the point as usual. It wasn't a case of a small retailer deliberately taking the piss & 'taking on' the big retailer. Unless it can be proved that a 'small' retailer is intending to deceive the customer that their product/service is actually that of the large retailer then there should be no need for the little guy to do anything. The retail pond is big enough to cater for lots of competition. HB were & are taking the piss & acting like bullies - they have form. The brand in questyion has no similarities to HB in any way shape or form & due to the fact the (chavvy) use of Boss, as a slang term, is limited to scouse usage & therefore has a very limited production run/customer base, the potential for the wee blokes kit to be seen as HB or close it is HB just being pricks & coming the billy big bollocks....yet again.

No one should have to kow tow to any other retailer unless the evidence of deliberate intent to deceive/defraud can be proved. Thats down to the legal team of the big guys to prove.
Do you really think the plucky little brewer is poor? They are probably quite well off they just aren't as big as Hugo boss.
.

They weren't taken piss and the weren't bullies, it just a usual press story of the nasty big firms gringing their heel into the little people faces.
Do you think the Hugo Boss CEO sits behind his desk and thinks " I know, let bully someone"?


The scouse cunt was gobbling off about having people all around the world on his side/looking at his site. If Hugo boss had backed down he would be shouting it from the rooftops how the poor scouse victims have won their battle against the bullying capitalists, yet strangely enough hes just said that they have come to an agreement.
 

Latest Threads

Top