05 January 2024 , 15:43
814
0
Manchester City are facing a High Court injunction from clothing label Superdry, who allege trademark infringement on the Premier League champions.
Beer manufacturer Asahi Super “Dry” were named as the club’s training kit partner last July, meaning the drink’s logo is displayed across clothing worn during regular sessions and when both men's and women's teams are warming up before matches.
But fashion brand Superdry last month lodged an "injunction to restrain" City from using the name, claiming that “the differences between Super ‘Dry’ and Superdry are so insignificant that they may go unnoticed by the average consumer.” They are also seeking an undefined amount of costs.
As first reported by the Telegraph, Philip Roberts KC, acting for Fox Williams LLP on behalf of Superdry, warned of a demand for the “destruction or modification upon oath of all goods and other items ... [which] would constitute a breach of the injunctions.”
The court claim, submitted on December 15, included several pictures of the players in training kit and details how the club announced in July that “Super ‘Dry’ Asahi 0.0%” would be carried on sportswear, including “long-sleeved zip tops and short-sleeved shirts.”
Teachers, civil servants and train drivers walk out in biggest strike in decade
Mr Roberts KC said “the sponsored kit is identical to each of the selected goods” and is “identical with or similar to the mark for which the Superdry Registrations are registered in relation to goods identical with or similar to those for which the Superdry Registrations are registered, in circumstances liable to give rise to a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.”
He added: “The defendant [City] is hereby called upon to confirm whether it is using or intending to use the sign(s) complained of in relation to any Class 25 goods beyond the sponsored kit, in order that the selected goods relied upon can be expanded to the extent necessary without undue case management disruption.
“The Defendant threatens and intends to perpetuate (alternatively, to commence) the acts complained of hereinabove,” the claim says. “By reason of the aforesaid acts the claimants have suffered damage and/or will suffer damage in the future unless restrained by this honourable court.”
The court submission added: “Accordingly, the Claimants will seek damages in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, as retained law, to include inter alia any unfair profits made by the infringer by reason of the infringement.”