-
Seymour Sign & Print Ltd, successfully obtain judgement against Peterborough Sign Company.
Seymour Sign & Print Ltd, successfully obtain judgement against Peterborough Sign
Company.
On Monday 23rd October 2017, Seymour Sign & Print Ltd successfully obtained a judgement at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in London, against Peterborough based ‘Ed’s Customs’ for the unauthorised use of an image from their portfolio, infringing their copyright. Ed’s Customs used an image from Seymour Sign & Print’s portfolio to promote vehicle graphics in several locations on their website, and on social media.
The father & son team first became aware of the infringement on Saturday 6th May, after receiving an Anonymous e-mail through the contact form on their website, informing them that a company by the name of ‘Ed’s Custom’s’ in Peterborough were using an image of theirs on their Facebook Page. A quick search revealed the page in questions and prominently at the top of their feed was a photograph of a vehicle Seymour Sign & Print had sign written outside their unit, promoting 20% vehicle graphics throughout May. Following the link to their website edscustoms.co.uk the same image was again used on their home page as full width rotating banner, as an image link to ‘Van & Fleet Graphics’ also featuring in their gallery.
Paul & David Hammond outside the Royal Courts of Justice
Initially Seymour Sign & Print made requests through Social Media & E-mail requesting the image be removed within 24hours. However at lunchtime on Monday 8th May, the images still featured on their website. A comprehensive letter was sent on the 8th May, providing detailed information of the infringement, and offering a settlement for damages. Seymour Sign & Print received no response from the defendant, and issued a claim through the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.
David Hammond, Son & Director of Seymour Sign & Print explains “Initially I was surprised to find the company using our images, especially with such prominence and making no effort to alter or disguise the location. This was always a moral battle, rather than a financial battle. Looking through the defendants Facebook and website, it became clear we were not the only company to have our images used without consent. After receiving an irate phone call from Ed on receiving the claim form from the court, his assurances that we would never obtain a judgement and we were wasting our time and money, just motivated me more to pursue the matter to the greatest extent. It is satisfying to have secured our judgement against Edward, and I hope our experience can be an inspiration to others to protect their intellectual property.” The defendant made no apology for using Seymour Sign & Print’s image, laying blame at an India based web designer who sourced the images for their website from the internet. The defendant admitted in their defence to the claim that they launched the website & Facebook page using Seymour Sign & Prints image. After reading this Seymour Sign & Print made an application to the court for a summary judgment as the defendant had no realistic prospect of defending the claim following their admission. The court set a date and ordered Seymour Sign & Print, and Ed to attend the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, located within the Royal Courts of Justice in London, where the summary judgement hearing would be heard, and if unsuccessful a full hearing would commence immediately.
The defendant did not attend the hearing, nor put forward any representation in their absence and Seymour Sign & Print successfully secured a Judgement against the proprietor of Ed’s Customs.
Paul Hammond, fellow director and David’s father said.
“I’m glad this matter has been brought to a successful conclusion, and I trust this will serve as a warning to others who feel it acceptable to plagiarise others work, for their own benefit. The small claims track of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Courts, makes it affordable and accessible to anyone to protect their intellectual property. We should not underestimate the value of our design and creativity.”
Whilst this case was clear cut that the image was used without permission, with prominence, and the addition of a footer to the defendants website admitted to prolific abuse of others copyright, it took the judge some time to quantify the sum for damages. As there are no comparable stock photographs, and no licence would be granted for another company to use a portfolio image, it was agreed the Defendant had breached Seymour Sign & Print’s copyright, it had used the image with great prominence and shown a flagrant disregard to copyright, and award damages & costs in favour of Seymour Sign & Print.Seymour Sign & Print Ltd
Unit 12a
The Cobden Centre
Vere Street
Salford Quays
M50 2PQ
0161 925 0581
seymoursignandprint.co.ukDo you have company news, a blog or a particular job you would like featured on uksignboards.com? Contact us at chris@uksignboards.com for more information.
.
-
20 Replies
-
Nice one chaps so pleased for you
[emoji1] -
Times that by 2
-
Good stuff David !!
-
Well done Paul & David!
-
Great stuff David
-
Thank’s – I do hope this provides some inspiration to others to take a firm stance on protecting our IP.
Should we need to do it again, there are a few things I would do differently to reduce costs, such as request the case to be dealt with by papers, negating the need to to travel to London, and paying the hearing fee.
My application for a summary judgement was probably overkill, adding to our costs, but had the defendant turned up it would have paid dividends, as the judgement would have been granted immediately without the need for a full hearing.
I knew we were right from the start, and that the law was on our side, what I didn’t know what how well the legal process would work for us.
A satisfying result, and in someways quite enjoyable (how sad am I!) :blushing:
-
Well done David – have you ever considered opening a consultancy business to claim compensation for other signmakers?
Attachments:
-
Well done David – have you ever considered opening a consultancy business to claim compensation for other signmakers?
Attachments:
-
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 Made my day Phil! :thumbsup:
-
Are you actually likely to get any money from them?
-
The judgement was secured against a sole trader, so is in the individuals name, so will negatively affect their credit file, an incentive to pay in the instructed timeframe from the court before it is registered.
There is also the option of HCEO’s or CC bailifs paying a visit, again as it is against the owner personally, personal assets are at risk.
-
How long have they got to pay up?
As they are ok with the odd theft, I don’t think a ccj will be a worry them too much, they are probably busy putting everything they own into the names of friends and family. I get more cynical every day. -
That will be on the CCJ when it arrives.
They may do that, but if you’ve seen Can’t pay we’ll take it away, they’re not daft and will ask to see receipts etc.
If they don’t pay… any kind of finance become difficult to source, and if you do find it, it’ll be at much higher interest rate.
-
Got a copy of the court order today, in total, including costs, they’ve awarded us £1651.40 :shocked:
-
FANTASTIC! thanks for giving others courage to put up a fight and find out the bastards can be beaten!!!
-
quote David Hammond:Got a copy of the court order today, in total, including costs, they’ve awarded us £1651.40 :shocked:
Congratulations again, thats great!
How much did you think they would hit them with David? -
I recall the judge saying £1100ish, but thay may have been damages, excl costs and expenses. I’ll look at the order properly tomorrow.
-
The breakdown as follows:
£975.00 Damages, £325 damages, 100% uplift for flagrancy, and a further £325 due to the prominence of it’s usage. The £325 was based on a recreating a comparable livery in the current market. No VAT on damaged.
Court fee’s – £490.00 (£255 was the summary judgement application, £80.00 Issuing the claim form, and £155 hearing fee)
£186.40 witness expenses, (2 rail tickets, booked in advance, and £100.00 lost earnings)
All because they didn’t remove the image, ignored any correspondence (excl the claim form) and made no apology for it. They simply buried their head in the sand, possibly thinking what’s the worst that can happen?
You’ll see from the original post it wasn’t ever really about the money, more to see if the system genuinely works.
-
David, what I’m wondering is, can you publicise this story in your local press – or their local press? Obviously the Court victory and compensation are great, but the real damage to the other firm would be negative publicity in their local area.
It occurred to me that if these people were so stupid as to ignore your warnings, or that they didn’t care, this may not stop them doing the same thing to other firms, in which case it would be even better if this story was made known.
-
Again it was never about the money. It was a moral battle. The actions of the defendant are what drove me to continue to the extent we did.
I am well aware that this 1 photo, although there were many images on the site in question that were of questionable origin (some even with the watermark still on them), the judge was aware of this and the addition of the footer mentioned above further incriminated the defendant, that it was not isolated to ourselves, and was part of the reason for the flagrancy uplift in damages.
On completion of the hearing we did publish the press release, which was picked up by the UKSB, and a few trade magazines (although I’m not sure if they will run with the story).
The main objective was to publicise that there is a system in place that enables everyday people like you & I to protect our intellectual property. This was a portfolio image used without consent, the same process can be used for logo designs, photography, any creative design we create.
It’s sure to happen to someone else in the future, and rather than going to the trouble of issuing court proceedings, sending a link to this article will prompt a swift and amicable resolution.
Log in to reply.