Archive for September, 2009

Information sharing costs dinner lady her job

Friday, September 25th, 2009

It has been reported this week that a dinner lady was dismissed because she told the parents of a 7-year-old girl that she had seen their daughter being bullied. The school are reported to have told the parents that an “incident” had occurred, whereas the dinner lady informed them that she witnessed boys tying up their daughter and whipping her. The school has said it was a breach of confidentiality and dismissed the dinner lady.

Was it a breach of confidentiality, or is this an example of the confusion and fear some schools feel when faced with information sharing?

Mark Blois

Posted by Mark Blois
0115 976 6087
mblois@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

How do you stop an advertisement being banned?

Thursday, September 24th, 2009

On Wednesday the ASA upheld a complaint, made by the Asbestos Watchdog, about the accuracy of the statistics quoted in the HSE’s ‘Asbestos: The Hidden Killer’ advertising campaign.  The HSE have stated that they are disappointed with the ASA’s decision. They consider it to be only on a technicality and they intend to request a review by the Independent Reviewer of ASA Adjudications.

This case shows how a single complaint by a body with a vested interest could potentially result in an entire campaign being banned from publication, despite an advertiser believing it has sufficient evidence to prove the claim. Many complaints to the ASA are upheld, and overturning an ASA decision on appeal will not be easy.

To minimise the risk of a successful complaint being made, advertisers need to be able to produce significant evidence to substantiate their claims and also seek legal advice both prior to embarking on any advertising campaign, and after receiving any complaint.

Considering the money (in this case public funds) which gets invested in advertising campaigns, is it too easy to get an advert banned?

Fiona Carter

Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

The end is nigh for the copycat?

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

Pimms recently took on Pitchers, and now a few weeks later, Next take on Tesco’s. Next has filed claims alleging that the supermarket has copied up to five of its clothing lines and stolen two design motifs originally designed by Next.

Brand owners have always recognised the value that exists in their designs and their brand. They spend a considerable sum of money to try and protect the rights that they hold in this Intellectual Property (IP). However, over the years copycats have exploited the limited protection that the Courts have afforded brand owners.

Now, it looks like brand owners are ready to have another go at getting the Courts to recognise and protect their IP rights.

However, the Courts seem to be distinguishing “imitation” – i.e. so similar that the public may be confused as to who owns the brand – and “comparison” – where the product is so different that there is no real confusion just an opportunity for consumers to choose the brand they prefer.

Copycat – consumer choice or consumer exploitation?

Fiona Carter

Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Call to change anti-bullying law

Monday, September 21st, 2009

This weekend, the BBC reported on a bid by education lawyers to strengthen anti-bullying laws. There has been particular focus placed on the bullying of children with special needs, as per the ad campaign on TV. Vernon Coaker, the Schools Minister, referred to a bill in Parliament at present that further addresses these issues.

There are many ways in which bullying can be addressed and resolved at school internally. An independent adjudicator, as is being proposed, would only serve to create more paperwork, cost more money and ultimately lead to more confusion – as would parents accessing the LA ombudsman. This, in light of Ed Balls’ announcement that he is cutting £2bn worth of education spending, is somewhat conflicting. NAHT say that this move only adds to the already present ‘hyper-sensitivity’ surrounding parents holding teachers to account.

Though bullying is a serious and very sad issue, could the volume of guidance out there merely be creating an abundance of over-lapping law and regulations?

Mark Blois

Posted by Mark Blois
0115 976 6087
mblois@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Government having second thoughts?

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

Is the Government having second thoughts about its Vetting and Barring scheme? The scheme hit the headlines last week prompting heavy criticism that the law surrounding the scheme was unclear and the measures disproportionate.

Sir Roger Singleton, chair of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, has now been asked to review the vetting system. Ed Balls has emphasised the need to define what is meant by “frequent or intensive” contact and Sir Roger has acknowledged the “legitimate concerns” expressed by the likes of children’s authors who would be required to register with the ISA before visiting schools.

While the Government insists that it is not abandoning the scheme completely, will the scheme in its original form be recognisable once Sir Roger has taken this opportunity to make it “more straightforward”?

Mark Blois

Posted by Mark Blois
0115 976 6087
mblois@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Parents face further checks

Friday, September 11th, 2009

From October 2009 it will be a criminal offence for parents who regularly drive children for sports clubs or other children’s clubs to do so unless they are registered with the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). This means those parents will have to undergo a criminal record bureau check (CRB) before they can help.

I am a supporter of the ISA scheme and the wide ranging improvements recommended by Sir Michael Bichard, but is this really what he had in mind when he talked in his report about vetting those that worked with children? Surely a line has to be drawn between those who are working/volunteering with children and those that simply ensure that important, social and sporting clubs and events continue to run?

Will parents be willing to undergo these checks and if not, will clubs fold?

Mark Blois

Posted by Mark Blois
0115 976 6087
mblois@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Diageo sues Sainsbury's

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

This is the first time we have seen a high profile brand owner take on a Supermarket for copycat packaging since United Biscuits successfully took ASDA on in their claim for passing off in 1997…and it is about time. The cost and uncertainty of the law of passing off has to date deterred brand owners from making a stand. It will be interesting to see whether the implementation of the Consumer Protection Regulations last May has influenced Diageo’s decision to take legal action.

The Regulations provide brand owners with an alternative weapon against those looking to trade off the back of their success by specifically banning “the promotion of a product similar to a product made by a particular manufacturer in such a manner as deliberately to mislead the consumer into believing that the product is made by that same manufacturer when it is not”. Although the Regulations are predominantly part of the criminal regime, it may be that Diageo use their existence in the civil court for emphasis when presenting the case of an intellectual property right infringement.

It remains to be seen whether an enforcer such as Trading Standards decide to investigate this potential breach of the Regulations. However, if they do this would undoubtedly strengthen Diageo’s case as well as give them a right to apply to the criminal courts for an Order for the forfeiture of Sainsbury’s Pitcher.

Brand owners should be watching this space very closely indeed.

Fiona Carter

Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)