Baralier ([info]baralier) wrote,
@ 2006-03-31 10:14:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: busy
Entry tags:copyright & censorship

Signing your life away...
Princess Diana's wedding dressmaker, Elizabeth Emanuel, has no right to regain her own name as a trademark, Europe's highest court ruled Thursday.

When she was on the brink of bankruptcy, Emanuel sold her company and her trademark in 1997, to Frostprint Ltd, which changed its name to Elizabeth Emanuel International Ltd ('EE International'). EE International then assigned the registered trade mark to another company, Oakridge Trading Ltd ('Oakridge').

In 1999, she launched a fight to get her name back after the company that bought her trademark started selling clothes under her signature.

Just goes to show the twisted way in which Trademarks and corporate law work. I assume this would be a very similar instance to Dick Smith Electronics, which has had nothing to do with Dick Smith in over 20 years.


(12 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]trayce
2006-03-30 11:35 pm UTC (link)
One would wonder why she sold away her name trademark to start with, if she didn't realise whoever bought it was surely going to bank on the name to sell clothes with!??!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]greylock
2006-03-30 11:42 pm UTC (link)
There was a dooco on this a few years back, which is why I know who she is. I seem to recall that while Emanuel is a prize tosser, that she may have gotten shafted on some agreement or other by the man (he was Indian businessman ... I think the guy who made Joe Bloggs clothes in the 1990s).

She cried a lot in that, as I recall, and had some idea that fashion was the be all and end all of the world.

IIRC, she also didn't realise that in selling her business she was selling the rights to her name.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]trayce
2006-03-31 01:46 am UTC (link)
God, I remember that doco as well! The Joe Bloggs guy did seem like a right hard-head asshole.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]frou_frou
2006-03-31 01:52 am UTC (link)
Well then she's an idiot - any contract lawyer would have explained that, and failing that, she should have read the contract before she signed it. After all, why would they have paid (what was probably very good) money for her name if they didn't intend to use it?

There's a similar court case going in Melbourne now with Miss Lulu's tap dancing academy. She sold her name to another company now can't use it to open a new school. At least in this case she's happy to use another name.

Tough bikkies: if you're in business, you can't afford to be this naiive. I find it hard to believe that successful people are.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]greylock
2006-03-30 11:35 pm UTC (link)
Dick Smith is even more interesting because they still use his image.
An image Dick uses on all manner of products.

(Why Dick Smith and Tandy still trade as different businesses I have no idea).

(Reply to this)


[info]devilgirly
2006-03-31 01:01 am UTC (link)
Doesn't seem so twisted to me, you sell your trademark, then somebody else uses it - if you don't want someone using your name, sell your business but don't sell the trademark, surely...?

Having said that, are there moral rights assigned to usage of a person's legal name, or only to artistic works? As that would give this EE more of a leg to stand on (but not much more!)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]baralier
2006-03-31 01:32 am UTC (link)
Oh I understand what has been done is perfectly straight forward. What I find twisted is that under corporate law you're *able* to sell your name to some-one who isn't you and then you're no longer entitled to use your name.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]devilgirly
2006-03-31 01:38 am UTC (link)
Hmmm I guess, but I suppose that's what happens when people operate business under their real names - the name is what has the value. *shrugs* Sucks for those others who just happen to be living under the same legal name too though, heh ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]canticle
2006-03-31 01:49 am UTC (link)
Yeah, but that's the fault of people who decide to file trademarks in their name, not the law itself.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]canticle
2006-03-31 01:49 am UTC (link)
I don't find this twisted at all.

She SOLD her name as a trademark. She willingly entered into the transaction, knowing that her name had value.

Too bad for her, regardless of why she did it. She made a decision to forfeit her name as a brand, and I see no reason why this should be held up as an example of trademark abuse when much better examples exist.

(Reply to this)


[info]frou_frou
2006-03-31 01:54 am UTC (link)
This is why it's good to trade under another name, not your own. Of course, there are advantages to using your own name, but if you do, it's surprising that as many sell their name and expect to be able to still use it for their own purposes.

(Reply to this)

trips down memory lane...
[info]paula_angela
2006-03-31 03:13 am UTC (link)
I vaguely recall the doco. She initially went into a kind of "partnership" with the Joe Blogs guy. Or at least, while he'd bought the rights, she was still working for him in the design room. But as a partnership, you've got to ask where the synergy between "high fantasy courture" and "mass production" clothing lays.

While he was trying to get a range of clothing out, she was working on some Elizabeth Arden bride thing. It was the biggest, pfooffiest white dress you've ever seen (just devine) going to be used to advertise perfum in full page adverts in Vogue magazine and the like. She went to the USA for the photo shoot, rather than doing any work on the new clothing line for the main label (i.e. the paying work). Consequently, she arrived home to see the first collection of ready-to-wear clothing that would bear her signature being previewed. The clothing was very plain, very straight, very simple (yet somehow had managed not to be elegant), and the only reference to her past work was the fact that it was all in white. The horror on her face was pretty plain. She had sold her name, but was trying to act like a partner in the firm, where she was in fact an employee at that stage. It's hard to have any sympathy for her.

(Reply to this)

(12 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…