E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Ian Johnston, msnbc.com
Nick Letchford, co-founder of Jaguar Shoes, outside the bar in Kingsland Road, east London.
SHOREDITCH, London – A British arts "collective" visited by stars like Natalie Portman, Amy Winehouse and Beyonce is locked in a legal battle over its name with automaker Jaguar.
Jaguar Shoes -- a cafe, bar and art gallery -- opened in London’s Shoreditch in 2001 at the start of the transformation of the area from a run-down district to a hub of artistic activity that's become a favorite haunt of the city’s “hipsters.”
Founders Nick and Teresa Letchford, who are brother and sister, created the venue by knocking together a former bag store and a former shoe store. Partly due to a lack of money, they decided to keep the storefront signs, and the quirkily titled “Dream Bags Jaguar Shoes” was born.
Because the Jaguar Shoes sign was over the main door, that became the name they were known by, the name of the collective of artists who show their work there and the name of their website.
Portman partied, Beyonce borrowed office
But when they sought to protect “Jaguar Shoes” with a trademark –- a move Nick Letchford said was a response to their work being copied -- car company Jaguar Land Rover submitted an objection that might ultimately make it impossible or impractical to use the name.
The gallery has promoted more than 600 artists, musicians and fashion designers and has been featured in ads for the likes of sneaker firm Adidas.
It was name-checked in the song “You Want History” by British band Kaiser Chiefs. Actress Natalie Portman once danced to the music of Animal Collective in the basement, and Beyonce borrowed their office to do a webcast.
“In Shoreditch, that sort of thing doesn’t come as a massive surprise,” Letchford told msnbc.com in an interview at Jaguar Shoes, because it is “completely full of creative-industry types.”
A former assistant film director who worked with Madonna's ex-husband and filmmaker Guy Ritchie, among others, Letchford said when they adopted the shoe store’s name, “it never crossed our mind” that there might be a problem.
“This has been going on for about two years. We’ve tried to settle it, we’re looking to settle, but it feels like we’re banging our heads against a brick wall,” he said.
“Conceptually, Jaguar Shoes is a very different thing to a Jaguar [car]. If I think what jaguar shoes are, what they represent … most people are going to see a pair of catskin shoes,” he added. “I think it’s basically a default objection to any other use of jaguar, the word.”
Asked if losing the case would mean they would not be able to use the name, Letchford said, “I don’t really want to contemplate that.”
Navajo file trademark suit against Urban Outfitters
A hearing at the U.K.’s Intellectual Property Office is due to be heard in the coming weeks.
Catherine Wolfe, president of The Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys, told msnbc.com that the “basic test” was whether people were “confused” and thought Jaguar Shoes had something to do with the car company.
“Are you more likely to go to that bar because it’s got the name of a cool car?” she wondered.
Gandalf saved 'The Hobbit'
U.K. law also says a trademark will not be registered if it takes “unfair advantage” of or is “detrimental” to an earlier trademark.
In a recent, separate case, a bar in Southampton, England, called The Hobbit was threatened with legal action for copyright infringement by California-based Saul Zaentz Co., which owns worldwide rights to a number of brands associated with author J.R.R. Tolkien.
Attempts made to trademark 'Occupy' slogans
After public outcry, a deal was reached that saw Gandalf actor Sir Ian McKellen help pay a copyright license fee to enable the bar to carry on using the name.
Letchford clearly hopes publicity will persuade Jaguar Land Rover to drop its "irrational and inappropriate pressure," as he said in a press release on Jaguar Shoes' website.
A petition has been set up asking people to sign if they have “never experienced any confusion between the restaurant bar and gallery brand JAGUAR SHOES and JAGUAR who make cars,” and wish to ask the trademark authority to allow Jaguar Shoes to trademark its name.
As of Tuesday morning, the petition had 859 signatures. News of the legal fight has also been spreading on Twitter. Letchford said he thought it likely that most people in London’s creative industries had heard about their case.
Letchford said Jaguar’s attempt to protect its brand seemed to have achieved “completely the opposite.”
“People have just been like ‘Is this for real?’ It doesn’t feel like it’s for real,” Letchford said.
“I’ve been stressed out about it for two years, and now it’s about to come to a head. It’s a point of principle. really.… The sign is what started the business. That’s the genesis of Jaguar Shoes, that’s the authenticity.”
Jaguar Land Rover, owned by Indian car giant Tata Motors, did not return a call from msnbc.com asking for comment.
While public records show that Jaguar Land Rover has objected, they do not reveal the grounds for the objection. Letchford said there had been negotiations with Jaguar Land Rover but added that he had been advised not to go into detail.
More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Vatican allows mobster to be exhumed for clues in disappearance
- Mexico's drug war: No sign of 'light at the end of the tunnel'
- Troops capture senior Kony commander
- Palestinian prisoners agree to end hunger strike
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world
Leave a Comment:
testing. this is only a test.
You failed.
Why the hell would you want to keep calling your CAFE "Dream Bags Jaguar Shoes"? Oh yeah, because they're hipsters. And since celebrities visited the place, maybe it's more sensible to trademark the full name instead. That way there can be no confusion.
Did Jaguar Automobiles get permission from Jaguar wild animals to use the name for their cars?'
This is silly. Jaguar Shoes is not trying to sell anything based upon Jaguar Automobiles name or reputation.
did you even read the article? they kept the existing signage to save money.
Painting a new sign would cost next to nothing. They kept the names because they were so "hip". They have a few options now. They can paint the word "not" in front of the word Jaguar. They can switch signs and become Dream Bags. Or, and this is my recommendation, change the name to The Nick and Teresa Letchford Who Are Brother and Sister Cafe. Uber hip!!!
The Car Company can BUY the Shoe Store and Lease it BACK to the Brother & Sister. They could even supply a pair of "Really Sleek Shoes" to every buyer of the "Super Sleek Car".
Doesn't say much about the focus of Jaguar the car people. I don't think I'll ever hold Jaguar the car to the esteem I once perceived. They're just like all the other car manufacturers! Anything for a buck. If I could afford a Jaguar car - I wouldn't buy one now.
There's a lot more to a car than just the brand. A Ford GT, for example, is way better than a Mercedes-Benz C-Class, yet Mercedes is a better brand than Ford. Go figure.
Haha if I was an executive at Jaguar, I would have let them keep the name because now it seems like they are getting bad publicity. I would have just sent in a lawyer saying they can't expand the brand or face lawsuit. Anyhow how do you copyright an animal? But, they find ways.
Jaguar is owned by Tata Motor's of India? Well how about that?
This isn't a David vs Goliath issue. The name was owned and trademarked. They used a trademarked name when naming their cafe. Sorry, you lose. If this cafe had been named Jaguar for 120 years, and Land Rover suddenly decided to name their latest car Jaguar, the sentiment would be reversed, with people complaining about how the big company is trying to steal this tiny beloved cafe's name.
Trademarks exist for a reason. The cafe owners violated the law, no matter how much you want to villify the company.
How is it that Apple named the 2002 Mac OS, OSX "Jaguar"? Under this principle Apple could have been sued for infringement of the Jaguar name also. It happens that as nobody was confused between a car and software on a mac, Jaguar had no grounds for a legal case. The same should be applicable here.
The name and trademark must be the duly registered name and trademark. There is no possibility the the name on the store broaches the trademark of the the auto company. The storefront sgnage has no similarities other than the word "jaguar" in the title and is obviously not an attempt to copy or infringe on the previously registered trademark. Having a trademark does not entitle one to exclude others from being able to use any or all of the words in the trademark unless the new trademark attempts to infringe the prior one by similarity of design. The court should grant the appication and tell Jaguar Land Rover, Ltd. to go pick on someone else. Really!
You don't understand trademark law. That' s like saying I'm have a trademark on the name "Paul" and sue anyone who uses "Paul" in their name. Doesn't work that way.
But, Apple was sued! The Beatles, who had the name Apple Ltd first sued the computer company. Apple Computers won the suit because the court ruled that they are more well known than the Beatles. As a result Apple Computers got to keep the name, and the Beatles had to pay Apple Computers to continue to use the name Apple on their company.
Marty you have it backwards. Apple records was awarded the name for all recording mediums, like cd's. As a result Apple computers paid a license to Apple records for any cd (music or software) which had the apple name on it. I believe that settlement ran its course.
As someone who understands a little about marketing, seeing how hip Jaguar Shoes attracts famous actors and singers, as well as hipsters in England, wouldn't it behoove the automaker Jaguar to take advantage of the type of crowd Jaguar Shoes attracts and run an ad campaign right in front of the store?
Stodgy business execs in fancy suits have no idea how to market to the the 30-somethings.
I LOVE, OWN, and DRIVE a Jag-u-ar. I would have no other, nor do I want to tarnish the name by allowing a art gallery to use it. As an artist I an fully for the proliferation of art. In that the car is a work of art unto itself, it would as if I were to sign my works Picasso.
Fine, since you Jaguar lovers are so rich, how about pumping some of that cash into protecting ACTUAL JAGUARS!
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Jaguar can't own the name Jaguar, anymore than Dodge can sue the Indianapolis Colts over the name.
Picasso ISN'T an naturally occurring creature or natural feature. Thank god, his stuff is rubbish. Particularly the later stuff, which was about nothing but the cash.
Rweber-1968632 - I really don't care what you drive - its a silly comparison to confuse shoes and a bar to the auto manufacturer. I guess my favorite football team will be sued next ... the Jacksonvile JAGUARS.
Somethings wrong with this article. Since when do hipsters get jobs? I'm more impressed they did not argue about this article getting posted because now their store will be mainstream.
Screw hipsters.
I like hipsters. They do a good job of helping to turn bad neighborhoods around. They tend to get involved in attempts to make them better, such as community gardens, etc, and they very often open small business such as cafe's and clothing stores.
I thought we were supposed to like small business owners.... sorry, job creators?
Close them down . Legal prosecution for name infringement. There are probably a 100 more violations of all types including illegal drugs.
It's stupid to believe that an animal name, not a CAR, is controversy in a court of LAW, have the Real Jaguar have an Attorney to represent God's creation, The Jaguar, Jaguar is an animal not a CAR, then Jaguar became a car. Greed and Ignorance, whats wrong with you people.
I am an Englishman and have owned a few “real” Jags, including the memorable V-12 E-type, now there’s a real car. In 2002 I bought a new S-type which was built when Ford owned the company. It is the worst car I have ever owned, and I’ve had a few! The first thing that happened during warranty was the complete headliner fell down, but Jaguar America said it was “upholstery,” and not covered by the warranty—$600 for a new headliner. Numerous other things broke, mostly not covered either. The last item was the gearbox which stopped changing gear automatically—$2500. The drivers seat back cracked to reveal the paper thin leather which was used.
The Jaguar car company had an iconic history, including their motor racing duels with Mercedes, and they used to build great cars. But now they are trading solely on their past reputation, which they no longer deserve.
Perhaps this is why they objected to a simple shoe shop name. Maybe they were afraid people would sooner buy shoes and walk, rather than buy a Jaguar car. The defense should produce a jaguar—I mean the real animal—and counter-claim against the stupid car execs. After all they copied their name didn't they?
Fedupinorlando, Once FORD took over Jaguar they destroyed the name and the car.
I think they're just looking for free publicity myself. This is ridiculous.
You can't buy shoes there... it's a Cafe and Bar w/ a touch of art gallery.
Finally got used to wet feet after filling with petrol, but I now know why I can't keep up with traffic while wearing my Jaguar shoes.
Ohhhh, those evil, filthy, PROFIT MAKERS! IT'S NOT FAIRRRRRRRRRR!
Good for Jaguar. Go getem.
I like Jaguar Shoes. They help me sneak through the jungle and attack hipsters.
Jaguar has a right to seek to defend their brand name. If the courts determine that the two are not in conflict they will both go their seperate ways. Many companies, especially in this internet age, are trying desperately to keep a foothold on their names as much as possible. When it comes to search engine marketing in particular, I am sure a big company such as Jaguar pays a marketing company a LOT of money to make sure they come up as high as possible on search engine lists, as many times as possible, under as many searches related to the word jaguar as possible, and they are seeking to defend their brand and position in the marketplace. In general companies pay millions of dollars over decades to build a certain image and persona around a brand, an idea around the name that goes above and beyond the actual product itself, I don't personally like their cars but I would say they have done a good job creating that kind of persona around their brand. Intentional or not, when other companies use that same branding, it waters down the integrity of the brand, so they will always try and prevent it from happening. There are rules and laws in place to decide these sorts of things, and it will be decided or settled.
In this case Jaguar is a well established and known company, and it is not like it is completely impossible for these bar owners to have figured out that maybe the car company wouldn't be so happy that they are getting a lot of attention using the same name as the existing famous British car company (not that I am saying they are getting attention because they used Jaguar, or that they at all picked the name intentionally, since I believe their story about the old store and whatnot), and I think Jaguar fully has the right to defend its brand.
All this coming from a company called TATA Motors?I am sure there is a stripper somewhere who's name is TaTa's.
They didn't think it would be a problem? Ya, right! What a great way to promote a business. Infringe on the trademark of another and get world wide press. SMOOTH , SMART MOVE!
If the auto maker fears people can't tell the difference between their cars and a pair of shoes, they've got bigger problems.
I hope the shoe guy gets to keep the name.
With a name like TaTa Motors you would think there's a stripper somewhere who is being infringed on.
The sign already existed for a previous actual shoe business. Why was there no problem when it was a shoe company?
Because Jaguar's attorneys never happened to have heard of it until now. And they need to prove they are worth the retainer!
JAGUAR is an iconic name associated with British Car Maker. They have all the right to defend their brand identity. Jaguar-LandRover condoned the use of the like name by a small business, since it is nearly impossible to go after this type of brush against your trademark. But, as a trademark owner they must stop someone trying to 'trademark' like name causing potential dilution of their brand identity.
Pathetic, spiteful, vengeful lawyers seeking to justify their retainer.
I thought Jaguar's reliability was enough to keep me, and other educated potential buyers, away.
This is the icing on the cake!
Take that, Lucas electronics!
Maybe if they were using Jaguar's icon or logo print style, they would bump into a trademark issue.
Otherwise, if anybody owns the name, the big cats in the jungle do.
This is like have you ever been confused by the Tigers of a Little League team in some small town in Nowhere, USA and the Detroit Tigers of MLB, Detroit MI?
No need to waste money on lawyers, just read MSNBC forums. The best emotional decision makers in the world, free of all reason. The courts will decide it I suppose based on the rule of law. Boring. Emotional decisions are so much more fun to watch as they create their collateral damage.
A 'designer' named Montana tried to sue the state of Montana.
I suppose you consider that rational?
He lost, by the way. Rule of law, you know. Plenty entertaining.