Commercial Law International

By Charles Wanguhu

Well with Ash rising over European skies causing all kinds of travel chaos, it is quite suprising and hard to fathom the impact of one volcano is having on the continent of europe and over its neighbours.

At the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport in Nairobi a stink has engulfed the main cargo centre where once freshly cut flowers and vegetables are now rotting. As of sunday a $12 Million stockpile worth  of vegetables and roses had piled in cold rooms at the airport.

But more suprising is the impact its having on Naivasha a small lakeside town  is all the more uprising. The flower industry is the main employer in the town with an approximate 50,000 employees. With one flower farmer forced to throw 6.5 tonnes of roses into a compost pit and losses being compounded day by day, nerves are already setting in with fears of unemployment rising.

The only hope is that the European airspaces will clear by the peak period of Mothers day. We all are as citizens of the world  really  interconnected.

By: Ainsley Brown

Cricket, lovely cricket…it would not be an overstatement to say that in India the love of sport of cricket is close to being if not equal to religious devotion.

The Indian Premier League (IPL) it could be argued is the hottest tournament right now in the world of cricket. The broadcasting rights are reportedly worth $1 billion over ten years for Sony and the eight teams in the league are worth an estimated $250 million. The league is so popular in India that many cinemas are forced to give up showing very popular Bollywood movies in order to meet the IPL demand.

The IPL and its shorter 20/20 version of the game are clearly not some passing fancy but a viable commercial concern.

With numbers like these is it any wonder that Google has sought out and closed a deal with the IPL. What Google knows and is demonstrating with this investment is that India is no longer some far off exotic backwater and cricket is not some obscure game with limited marketing potential. On contrary if the IPL by itself is any indication and now with this deal with Google ought to clearly show is that India and cricket are big business.

While the details of the deal are scanty it is expected that Google will stream live IPL games on YouTube when the tournament kicks off in March. Google will earn money from sponsorship and advertising.

By: Ainsley Brown

The safety of the people is not the supreme law

While terrorism, terror financing and constitutional principles such as the rule of law and Parliamentary supremacy are not the usual subjects covered here at Commercial Law International, this seeming break from tradition is in fact not such a stretch.

As our moniker indicates Commercial Awareness is Global – it is important to note and as will soon become clear, coverage of this case in no way departs from this.

This landmark ruling is instructive for the “normal” subjects covered on this blog because it illustrates the legal limits imposed on the state – read the government – as it pertains to its ability to interfere with the assets of an individual (natural or juridical). These limits are even justified, as their Lordships have ruled, when combating the scourge of international terrorism. As the Deputy President of the Court, Lord Hope of Craighead, put it: “Even in the face of the threat of international terrorism, the safety of the peoples is not the supreme law.” In other words the government of the day only has as much power as Parliament has allowed it to have; the will of Parliament being express of course in the laws its passes.

The offending powers struck down by their Lordships are the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 and the Al-Qaeda and Taleban (United Measures) Order 2006. The Orders were issued by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and now Prime Minister Gordon Brown in response to United Nations (UN) Resolutions passed in response to the September 11th attracts. The Resolutions sought global co-operation on combating the financing of international terrorism.

Unlike in many other countries the United Kingdom under its UN obligations did not pass legislation in order to give effect to the Resolutions. Instead, the Chancellor issued these Orders, empowering Her Majesty’s Treasury (Treasury) to seize the assets of suspected terrorist, Al-Qaeda and or Taleban members or supporters. The seizures could take place on mere suspicion without an hearing and would not be under scrutiny of the courts through judicial review.

The case was the first to be heard in the newly minted Supreme Court when it opened last year. The appeal was brought by five men whom successfully argued their case in the High Court that the Orders were unfair and breached their fundamental right guaranteed by the laws of Britain; however, they were later over turned by the Court of Appeal.

The question before their Lordships though a simple one was non the less a profound one. And it was this when Parliament empowered the Treasury to make orders did it in turn give the Treasury the power to “interfere so profoundly with individuals fundamental rights without parliamentary scrutiny[?]”

With word such as “oppressive,” “paralysing” and “draconian” peppering the decision, their Lordships answered the question with a resounding NO!

In a nation such as Britain, with a “unwritten constitution” it must always be remembered that Parliament is supreme and it is only through Parliament that the government has the exercise power. Moreover, when such power involves the interference with an individual’s basic rights such authorization cannot be implied but must be explicit. In any democratic-capitalistic society access to the courts and property rights are sacrosanct. As Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the President of the court put it: “Access to the court to protect one’s rights is the foundation of the rule of law.” And without the rule of law there can be no liberal-democracy.

For those that would say that this ruling is just another example of judges legislating from the bench in breach of Parliamentary supremacy, Lord Philips has a stern rebuke. His Lordship countenanced with “on the contrary it upholds the supremacy of Parliament in deciding whether or not measures should be imposed that affect the fundamental rights of those in this country” without explicit grant by Parliament.

It is important to not that Supreme Court are not saying that these laws are in and of themselves illegal – not at all. However, what their Lordships are saying is that if the government of the day wants exercise such extensive powers they much first seek and then be granted Parliamentary approval. Lord Hope put it best: “If the Executive considers that such far-reaching measures are necessary or expedient for combating terrorism or honouring the United Kingdom’s international obligations it must obtain approval for them form Parliament.”

In response to the judgment the Gordon Brown’s is rushing through Parliament the Terrorism Asset-Freeze (Temporary) Provision Bill which is expected to have retrospective effect and by and large mirror the quashed Orders. If all goes to plan the Bill will become law some time this week.

Remember The Greater Commercial Interest...Don't Get Crushed By Your Own Litigation

First posted on Law is Cool on Jan 9, 2010.

This is a blog post by current University of Western Ontario third year law student and Law is Cool blogger, John Magyar that I just had to share. It is a perfect illustraion of why here at Commercial Law International we say that: Commercial Awareness Is Global.

The story featured in the post is not gobal in the geographic sence but rather in the sense of being all encompassing. It illustrates very nicely why persuing a cliam or legal right while making perfect legal sense may not make much business sense. It gives a stark warning to current and future lawyers and their cleints for that matter to have  a Global-Big Picture outlook by examining how the best interests of the client are served; especially when considering persuing litigation. 

Enjoy:

According to an article by Canadian Press, Loblaws has seen the light and will no longer sue the man ‘deemed to be at fault’ for a collision involving a Loblaws truck that caused the death of the man’s wife and 6 teenage boys.  The legal action had been a lingering PR disaster that motivated outraged communities to push for a boycott.

Having spent all of 4 minutes considering the matter, I am struck by the lack of circumspect. This accident was a highly publicized tragedy that made front-page national news. Prime Minister Harper sent a letter of condolence to the school that the teenagers attended, according to CBC news, and no where in the coverage was the driver blamed.

This man was a basketball coach.  He was driving a van that carried the basketball team plus his wife and daughter.  It was winter and the road conditions were not good when the van fish-tailed on a highway and unspeakable tragedy ensued. This man might have been driving too fast, and his negligence might have caused damage to a Loblaws truck, however, from where I sit, public backlash seems a likely outcome of litigation. He made a horrible mistake and paid very dearly for it:  He lost his wife, he could have lost his daughter.  Many families in the community lost a son. Meanwhile, amidst all of this loss of life, Loblaws wants to recover for a damaged truck and lost inventory.  This looks cold-hearted to say the least.

There is lesson to be learned here.  As we graduate from law school and become involved in that financial bloodsport called litigation, we should remember that law suits do not occur in a vacuum.  Even though the law says you can, and even if you’re impervious to emotional reactions to sympathetic defendants, you should consider the potential for public outcry.  The client likely values his or her public profile more than money, and this applies whether the matter is civil, family or criminal.

From where I sit this seems so obvious …  but maybe things look different after swimming in shark-infested water for a few years.  Perhaps the real lesson is to remember what things look like from the outside when your on the inside.

By: Ainsley Brown

This is part of the Middle Passage Law Series and is cross posted on Law Is Cool.

Now I know I have not posted a piece in this series in quite some time and for that I apologize – I have no excuse.

It may seem that I am either picking on L´Oreal, as I have tracked their recent legal battles with eBay on Commercial Law International, either that or I have an obsession with makeup. Let me assure you that neither in the case. With that over, let´s go to the story.

The La Cour de Cassation, the highest court in France, upheld the ruling by the Paris Court of Appeal, finding L´Oreal guilty of racial discrimination. The court also found Adecco, a temp-employment agency, involved through its Districom division, guilty and fined both it and L´Oreal €30,000. The court however, sent back to the Court of Appeal for its reconsideration the €30,000 each in damages payable to SOS Racisme, an anti-racism public interest group that brought the case.

The ruling ends three years of legal wrangling and is no doubt a huge blemish for L´Oreal.

The main issue of fact in the case was BBR. Yes, BBR. What in the world is BBR, you ask?

BBR or blue, blanc, rouge – the colors of the French flag. Now if you were to ask me I would have simply thought that this was a general patriotic gesture, however, it hides a much more sinister meaning. It, as the Times reports is an expression ¨widely recognized in the French recruitment world as code for white French people born to white French parents.¨ This would of course exclude not only the 4 million ethnic minorities current living in France but also any whites not born of pure French stock, including presumably none other than the French President himself Nicolas Sarkozy whose father is Hungarian.

It would seem that word got out that L´Oreal did not want any black, Asian or Arab sales staff to promote Fructis Style, a hair care product made by its Garnier division. Only BBR would do, I guess – because they are worth it – to play on L´Oreal´s because you are worth it ads. But, why?

And this for me is the most troubling aspect of this case. The BBR move by L´Oreal hints at a much larger and disquieting issue in French society. Yes, racism, this is very obvious but much more than that it is brand of racism that operates not just on the fringes of society but at its heart – in the labour and retail markets – while at the same time managing to remain in the shadows .

How is it that this BBR policy that so pervades the French employment and retail markets is only now seeing the light of day?

Like I said, very troubling indeed.

However, a silver lining to all of this is that BBR has now been fully exposed in a court of law. From now on the racial prejudice that operates in the French labour and retail markets can no longer be subject to denials of anecdote or conjecture. The court record stands as an official record by the state that BBR does exist and is a proven fact.

As for L´Oreal, this cannot be good for its brand management. For a company that so fiercely defends its brands, just take a look at its battles with eBay, this was not only a poorly conceived recruitment drive but also incorrectly defended case – this is not to be read as a dig at L´Oreal´s lawyers, not at all, I am sure they represented their client the best way they could, however, I am unreservedly criticizing L´Oreal.

L´Oreal forgot that it´s all about the brand. What they sell is much more than simply a product, it is a lifestyle, it is instant gratification, it is control and it is improved self-confidence through a line of beauty products designed for one thing – to improve the true beauty that is you. Nothing can be allowed tarnish the brand less they lose sales and market share.

If this is the basic market reality of the L´Oreal brand, and for that matter any brand, why would you maintain the spectacle of a public trial for three years with a case that even if it comes out in your favor could still blemish the brand?

There is no doubt that L´Oreal´s PR team is hard at work trying to figure out how to either make this go away or finding an angle on how to spin this. A word to the wise, L´Oreal, you have already been found guilty, it would be an exercise in futility to deny any part of this. In fact such a denial, in whole or in part, direct or indirect, could result in a backlash against the brand. It would be better to fully accept culpability, say sorry and take positive and no doubt public steps in order to combat BBR or other forms of discrimination. That my friend is your angle.

By: Ainsley Brown

The world´s largest purchaser of hazelnuts and the maker of a very tasty treat, Ferrero Rocher, has been cleared in the English courts of a £20 million fraud.

The suit was brought against the Italian chocolate company by the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi and others alleging that deceit, negligent misrepresentation and conspiracy for a deal involving the purchase of hazelnuts. The allegations were that Ferrero Rocher participated in a fraud carried out by a Turkish company, Baskan Gida, between 2001-2002. Baskan Gida borrowed money from the banks´ London branch in order to purchase hazelnuts which it would in turn re-sell to Ferrero Rocher. However, it convinced the bank, using forged documents that Ferrero Rocher would repay it directly.

Well as you can guess no such payment was forthcoming. And the bank brought suit convinced that it was defrauded in a plot by both Ferrero Rocher and Baskan Gida. No such conspiracy existed.

The cost of defending this action was not cheap. As the Times reports ¨millions of pound were spent by each side.¨ Was this money well spent?

While there could be a very persuasive argument brought that this suit should have never been brought against Ferrero Rocher in the first place but since it was brought it had to fiercely defend against it. Fraud after all is an allegation against reputation – for a company commercial reputation is every thing.

This article is reproduces with the permission of the author and can be found on AccountancySA (South Africa´s leading Accountancy Journal).

There is no doubt that the world we knew before the global economic meltdown will not return. The causes of the meltdown will not disappear, and lurking behind them is another set of even more fundamental issues facing humanity.

The often quoted Chinese curse – ‘may you live in interesting times’ has never been more relevant than it is today.

Humankind has enormous environmental and social challenges facing it. We can no longer ignore them. The impact of the sustainability threats is affecting business more and more each day. Not only do businesses have to adapt their strategies and their way of doing business, they also have to adapt their way of reporting. No longer is it sufficient to report only on their financial performance to shareholders and potential investors. Today companies have a range of stakeholders that have vital interests in the activities of the organisation, and they expect companies to provide a range of information about the company. Indeed, the notion of a company being a corporate citizen has become a reality in recent years, and that has highlighted responsibilities and obligations for companies. Companies operate in communities, they consume scarce resources and they produce waste. All of which impact society and, therefore, society needs information about how companies are dealing with the related responsibilities and obligations.

There are various names given to such reporting, but the two most commonly used are ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ (CSR) reporting and ‘sustainability reporting’, which are broadly the same thing. In the past, CSR often referred to the philanthropic activities of a company and some people still see it as that, but in reality CSR reporting has become a much broader concept and an essential element of reporting, and it will no doubt become a legal requirement in the not too distant future.

There are a number of codes and reporting frameworks around, but most companies that do prepare sustainability reports use the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines, which may be downloaded from the GRI website at http://www.globalreporting.org/Home . A KPMG Survey[1] published in 2008 shows that 77% of reporting companies use the GRI Guidelines.

The GRI sees sustainability reporting as the practice of measuring, disclosing, and being accountable to internal and external stakeholders for organisational performance towards the goal of sustainable development.

Globally, sustainability reporting is increasing rapidly according to the KPMG Survey. It noted that over 80% of the world’s largest 250 companies (G250) now produce sustainability reports. The Survey, which covered 22 countries, revealed that a rising number of companies are producing sustainability reports. On average, 45% of the top 100 companies in the surveyed countries produce sustainability reports; Japan and the United Kingdom lead the table at 93% and 91% respectively; South Africa is some way behind at 45%, but it is one of the leaders in integrating the sustainability report into the annual report.

The recently published draft King Code says:
‘By issuing integrated sustainability reports, a company increases the trust and confidence of its stakeholders and the legitimacy of its operations. It can increase the company’s business opportunities and improve its risk management. By issuing an integrated sustainability report, internally a company evaluates its ethics, fundamental values, and governance and externally, improves the trust and confidence which stakeholders have in it.’

Whilst the GRI Guidelines are fast becoming the standard for sustainability reporting, there are many other voluntary guides and even legal requirements that are relevant to sustainability reporting. Some industries, such as the mining and chemical industries, have developed codes and guides. The Carbon Disclosure Project has developed standard disclosures relating to climate change information and particularly greenhouse gas emissions. In South Africa there is the King II Report and recently a draft King III Code was released. In addition, there are disclosure requirements in terms of the Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment legislation.

The GRI guidelines suggest that a sustainability report should provide a balanced and reasonable representation of the sustainability performance of a reporting organisation – including both positive and negative issues. However, there is always a temptation for companies to tell only the good news so that the organisation can be seen in the best light. Indeed, some companies use the sustainability report as a public relations document. This is known as ‘green washing’ and it can backfire horribly. In the US there are magazines and websites that constantly look for cases of green washing so that they can be exposed.

Sustainability reporting is not something to be taken lightly. It covers many areas on which companies have not traditionally focused and on which they certainly have not reported. In addition, many companies do not have adequate information systems to generate the necessary information, so they and end up making only vague statements, which are not helpful. A fundamental aspect of the exercise is to engage with a wide range of stakeholders to ascertain what the stakeholders see as important. Their views will not necessarily align with the views of management, since some of the areas highlighted by external stakeholders may be sensitive to the company. However, companies that deal with sensitive issues are likely to improve credibility ratings over those that ignore them or gloss over them.

The KPMG Survey suggests, ‘Understanding the way a company impacts the economic, environmental and social circumstances of its stakeholders, and vice versa, is at the heart of corporate responsibility. In order to develop a proactive, strategic approach, and a workable management and reporting system that will help change circumstances for the better for all parties, stakeholders should be part of the process. Identifying and prioritising stakeholders, and being transparent about which groups and individuals a company is engaging with, is a key part of building credibility and trust.’

Producing sustainability reports requires a great deal of planning, and an infrastructure that can generate the necessary information. It is also essential that top management is intimately involved in the process. It becomes very apparent when reading sustainability reports if a company has not embedded sustainability into its strategy and operations. In those circumstances, the report can do more harm than good.

As with any published information the credibility of the information is enhanced if it has some form of supporting assurance. The GRI guidelines outline different assurance models ranging from self-assurance to assurance by certification bodies and assurance by accountancy firms. Such assurance, however, can be costly, since the areas covered are not necessarily part of a normal audit. The KPMG Survey shows an increasing number of companies moving to an enhanced assurance model. In 2008, 70% of the G250 used accountancy firms to provide assurance.

Given the growing importance of sustainability reporting in organisations, SAICA has decided to develop a sustainability reporting course, which has been certified by the GRI. The two-day course outlines the principles of sustainability reporting and teaches participants how to go about planning for and implementing the processes to develop a sustainability report.

Chartered Accountants have been slow to embrace sustainability. This is unfortunate as it offers many business opportunities. The big danger, however, is if we do not embrace it we will rapidly lose relevance, and other professionals will usurp much of our ground. One area, amongst many, where Chartered Accountants should become involved is sustainability reporting. That is why SAICA is offering this training course.

[1] International Survey of Corporate Social Responsibility – 2008.

Graham Terry CA(SA), is the Head: Office of the Executive President, SAICA.
Published in AccountancySA – June issue – http://www.accountancysa.org.za/resources/ShowItemArticle.asp?ArticleId=1681&Issue=1076

By: Ainsley Brown

I have been wanting to do an Australian themed story for a long time, not least because of the global mandate of the site but also I am just a big fan of the land of Auz – I guess it´s just the rugby player in me but truth be told I am a bigger fan of New Zealand. However, I digress.

This story at its simplest can be boiled done to the difference between a Vo-Vo and just plain old Vo? What indeed?

A Vo-Vo, what on earth is a Vo-Vo or a Vo for that matter? Well for my non-Australian readers, the Australian ones I am sure know what I am talking about – that is if I have any Australian readers left after my rugby confession – a Vo-Vo is a popular Australian cookie. The strips of pink icing and jam sprinkled coconut of the Vo-Vo is much beloved by Australians, you could even go as far as saying it has cultural significance as evidenced  by it  garnering a mention in the victory speech of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

Now given the iconic status of the Vo-Vo, to say nothing of the commercial value of the brand to the Sydney based Arnott´s Biscuit´s it would come has little surprise that they would fiercely defend their intellectual property. Arnott´s after all has put a lot of time, human capital and money in the branding and marketing of the Vo-Vo, as demonstrated by its success. The Vo-Vo has been with Arnott´s very long time, it has held the registered trademarks to the Vo-Vo, Iced Vo-Vo and Iced Vo Vo names since 1906.

Here enters the American doughnut shop icon, Krispy Kreme, with their Vo. Yes a Vo. The Krispy Kreme Vo, instead of being a cookie is a doughnut that is, and get this, filled with raspberry jam and topped with pink icing and coconut.  As far as Krispy Kreme is concerned the public can easily tell the difference between a cookie and a doughnut and is not violating any laws.

Given the similarity, despite Krispy Kreme´s claim´s to the contrary, Arnott´s has told the American based company to stop violating its intellectual property rights or else it will be forced to take legal action to protect those rights. And I say rightfully so. Krispy Kreme can fool itself all it wants, the truth is that is was trying to cash in on the iconic status of the Vo-Vo without asking or having to pay the rightful owners for such a right. I if were representing Krispy Kreme I would take the out offer by Arnott´s and simply just stop making the Vo rather than risk going to court.

Krispy Kreme now finds itself in a lose, lose, lose situation. Before I go any further let me confess that I am not versed in Australian law nor am I well versed in common law based intellectual property law but I do know a little and I also know a little about the commercial consequences of legal action. As the site´s tag line exclaims Commercial Awareness Is Global.

Why a lose, lose, lose situation? Well, if it ends up in court Arnott´s stands a very good chance of proving its case, the Krispy Kreme Vo is, despite it being a doughnut, is far too close in name and substance to the Vo-Vo and violates Arnott´s rights. In this situation not only would Krispy Kreme have to pay over damages to Arnott´s it would also have to endure the spectacle of a public trail with its ensuing damage to its commercial reputation. Now even if it wins, you just never know which is why litigation is such a risky proposition at times, it still loses. It may not be liable for damages but it still would have suffered damage to its commercial reputation. It has take on an Australian icon, now even if Australians don’t readily associate Vo-Vo, Vo, Iced Vo or whatever else you want to call it, with Arnott´s, the do proclaim the name to be theirs .Now through the use of legal tricks an outsider – an American company – has come to our country and stolen our name – a part of Australia. Am I over playing it a bit, maybe, but it seems to me that the Australia people are a very proud people and guard what they deem to be their heritage very jealously.

Lastly, and incidentally the best situation for Krispy Kreme – though it still represents a loss – is to take up Arnott´s offer and just stop making the Vo.  This could quickly, as outlined above, turn into Australia vs. Krispy Kreme rather than an Arnott´s vs. Krispy Kreme.

Krispy Kreme should just admit that it got caught with its hand in the cookie jar and move on. It would be far better for it.

By: Ainsley Brown

Switzerland´s second largest bank, Credit Suisse, in a sign of generosity – oh sorry, let me re-phrase that – in a sign of commercial awareness and good customer relations, has decided to compensate clients who suffered losses as a result of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. It is the first investment bank to put forward such a comprehensive compensation package in connection with clients who bought Lehman products. This move will no doubt put pressure on UBS, Switzerland´s largest bank, and other investments banks to follow suit.

This new proposal is the second compensation payout in connection with Lehman so called capital protected products that Credit Suisse has undertaken. The first of these was done not long after Lehman filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US and administration in both the UK and in Europe. With this new development Credit Suisse has offered to compensate 3,700 clients to the tune of approximately SwFr 150 million.

But there´s a catch – isn’t there always. Firstly, it is not automatic compensation, no no, this is an offer for compensation. What is the difference? The difference being such an offer can always be rejected  by the client, who  could then presumably take recourse in the courts in order to protect/enforce their rights to just compensation. Also, being an offer Credit Suisse could always within a reasonable time withdraw it. Here again, presumably the client would have recourse to the courts, in either case neither Credit Suisse nor its clients (individually or collectively) would look forward to such a prospect. All would have to guard against delays, cost and reputational damage at a time when neither can afford the specter of a public trial.

Secondly, if accepted by clients it is not for 100% compensation – this would indeed be a sign of generosity if it were. Instead, clients would receive between 50% and 70% of the nominal value of their investments. Thirdly, in order to be eligible for this latest round of compensation the client must have up to SwFr500, 000 invested with Credit Suisse at the end of August, more than of a fifth of which must have been invested in 100% capital protected Lehman products.

I believe most if not all clients will accept this offer, laughing all the way to the bank as they do.

By: Ainsley Brown

Have a cuppa.

It is an understatement to say that the English take their tea very seriously. And it is little wonder why a small teashop in Surrey, England, even when faced with potential financial ruin, would not back down from a much larger German multinational. This is a tale about tea better yet teapots; a David and a Goliath; and lest I forget the rights to uses a logo.

Not long after the Tea Box opened, providing an up-market alternative to the run of the mill ‘main street’ coffee shop, it was faced with a legal challenge from a Duesseldorf based company. It would seem  Teekanne, which happens to mean teapot in German, took exception to the hand painted teapot logo that Tea Box was using. Teekanne claimed that it was too similar to its own logo and could cause customer confusion.

What Teekanne wasn’t counting on – I guess they expected such a small time operation to be impressed by its sized and resources and cave in but this is the UK and we are talking a bout tea but I digress. What they were not counting on was that one of the UK’s leading intellectual property firms coming to the rescue of Tea Box. Withers & Rogers LLP took on the case pro bono- for my none legal people out there this means free. This is good to see, as a profession we need more of this. The words pro bono for lawyers as become all too often associated with criminal, civil rights, family or judicial review matters, please don’t read this as a dig at the lawyer who perform such work, they are doing a great community service, however, the community can also be served when commercial law firms take on such cases.

And now back to the story.

After receiving early indications from the UK Intellectual Property Office that it would likely rule in favour of Tea Box, Teekanne promptly withdrew, great for Tea Box but not so great for Teekanne. Not did it lose money from mounting this legal challenge but it also had the effect of improving the market awareness of the Tea Box brand. You could even say that for Tea Box Commercial Awareness Is Global – hahahhahah, sorry about the cheesy plug for the site but hey I am a future lawyer trying to carve out a niche for my self.