Millen v Karen Millen Fashions Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 2104 (Ch).
The case of Karen Millen, who has recently lost her legal battle to use her own name serves to demonstrate the pitfalls for designers when considering whether or not they should trade under their own name or use an alternate name.
Karen Millen and her then partner Kevin Stanford set up the well-known fashion brand in 1983 using her own name. In 2004 both sold their shares to Baugur for £95 million. One of the key provisions in the Share Purchase Agreement (‘SPA’) prohibited the use of Karen Millen using her own name in any future business ventures. Ms Millen later sought to overturn the provision for the use of her own name in the US and China for projects in different sectors.
The court had upheld the provision in the SPA. You may well ask “but why”?
The court found that the name had become synonymous with the business; when a buyer purchased such a business, the buyer would also be purchasing all of its goodwill and that included the name. i.e. the name had become part of the goodwill of the business.
Click here for more details..
Contact Details:
Nath Solicitors Limited
4/4a Bloomsbury Square,
London, WC1A 2RP
Tel: 02036705540
Email: shubha@nathsolicitors.co.uk
Web: http://www.nathsolicitors.co.uk/
The case of Karen Millen, who has recently lost her legal battle to use her own name serves to demonstrate the pitfalls for designers when considering whether or not they should trade under their own name or use an alternate name.
Karen Millen and her then partner Kevin Stanford set up the well-known fashion brand in 1983 using her own name. In 2004 both sold their shares to Baugur for £95 million. One of the key provisions in the Share Purchase Agreement (‘SPA’) prohibited the use of Karen Millen using her own name in any future business ventures. Ms Millen later sought to overturn the provision for the use of her own name in the US and China for projects in different sectors.
The court had upheld the provision in the SPA. You may well ask “but why”?
The court found that the name had become synonymous with the business; when a buyer purchased such a business, the buyer would also be purchasing all of its goodwill and that included the name. i.e. the name had become part of the goodwill of the business.
Click here for more details..
Contact Details:
Nath Solicitors Limited
4/4a Bloomsbury Square,
London, WC1A 2RP
Tel: 02036705540
Email: shubha@nathsolicitors.co.uk
Web: http://www.nathsolicitors.co.uk/
No comments:
Post a Comment