London-based design trade association ACID (Anti Copying in Design) has reportedly helped design house Designer 12 (trading as Kandola Silks) secure nearly £50,000 in damages and costs against clothes and fabric retailers Laura Ashley for selling a cushion featuring a fabric which was “virtually identical” to a fabric of its own design. Once famed for its distinctive floral patterns, Laura Ashley has since fallen on hard times. The company did not admit to the infringement. ACID members currently enjoy the support of solicitors Addleshaw Goddard, whose London address they share.
The IPKat notes ACID’s achievement. Founded in 1996, ACID has carved a niche for itself in the protection of designers’ IP rights. Relatively few design infringement cases are fought in the UK and designers’ rights are often regarded as the poor relation of patents and trade marks. But ACID’s lobbying, monitoring and litigation support gives design right owners the confident belief that rights in designs are worth having after all.
Is your copyright under threat? Click here for the Federation Against Copyright Theft
Don’t confuse ACID with AcidDesign or ACIDesign
Acid tests here, here and here
The IPKat notes ACID’s achievement. Founded in 1996, ACID has carved a niche for itself in the protection of designers’ IP rights. Relatively few design infringement cases are fought in the UK and designers’ rights are often regarded as the poor relation of patents and trade marks. But ACID’s lobbying, monitoring and litigation support gives design right owners the confident belief that rights in designs are worth having after all.
Is your copyright under threat? Click here for the Federation Against Copyright Theft
Don’t confuse ACID with AcidDesign or ACIDesign
Acid tests here, here and here
LAURA ASHLEY FAILS ACID TEST
![<strong>LAURA ASHLEY FAILS ACID TEST</strong>]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html