The comedian formerly known as Joe Lycett sticks it to Hugo Boss by changing his name to Hugo Boss

[Metaphor]

Joe Lycett changed his name to Hugo Boss to protest Hugo Boss's aggressive trademark enforcement. I applaud his actions and hope it'll have some effect on reforming international governments' broken intellectual property laws that kowtow to global corporations.

Hugo Boss (the fashion house) is hardly to be blamed for enforcing its trademarks. It's governments who granted these trademarks in the first place that need their heads read. (Though I hardly think there is any hope for the European Union who are in lockstep with global corporations intellectual property racketeering.)

https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/...s-deed-poll-victoria-derbyshire-a4376066.html

The comedian formerly known as Joe Lycett has said that changing his name to Hugo Boss via deed poll has been “a headache.”
The TV star is now legally called Hugo Boss, in a jibe against the German luxury designer using trademark claims to target small businesses and charities who use “boss” in their branding.

He said that he has been surprised at the response to his decision since announcing it on Sunday.
He had posted a letter on Twitter purporting to be from the UK Deed Poll Office, which committed him to “absolutely and entirely renounce, relinquish and abandon the use of my said former name”.

Appearing on BBC Two’s Victoria Derbyshire show, the host referred to the comic by his new name, prompting him to admit: “I’m going to have to get used to it.”
He showed off his BBC visitor pass, which had a picture of him with his new name, and he added: “I’m now legally Hugo Boss, according to the BBC system.”
Explaining his actions, he said: “So, Hugo Boss is also a company, and there’s a small company called Boss Brewing in Swansea, who are a little new business, and they tried to make a trademark for a couple of their beers, and Hugo Boss sent them a cease and desist letter, which is a legal letter that says stop doing what they think is alleged illegal activity.“It’s a massive company taking on a little company and it’s just not fair – nobody’s going to confuse a beer with Hugo Boss.

He added: “I changed my name by deed poll, and I didn’t expect the reaction… I was in the bath about an hour ago.
“I’ve legally changed my name and it’s a headache I’ve got to tell you, there’s so many things you have to do.”

He said he is launching a new product as Hugo Boss and that it will be revealed on his Channel 4 show, adding: “Which I suppose has to be re-branded now because it was called Joe Lycett’s Got Your Back, but it’ll have to be Hugo Boss Has Got Your Back.”




According to WalesOnline, Swansea-based Boss Brewing was left with legal fees totalling about £10,000 last year after the fashion brand sent it a cease and desist letter when the brewer tried to register its brand.

In 2018, the i paper reported that a charity called DarkGirlBoss received a legal letter from Hugo Boss when it tried to trademark the name.
The comedian said he would like the company Hugo Boss to stop sending cease and desist letters, for them to give the money back to Boss Brewing, and that “an apology would be nice”.

Derbyshire read out a statement from the company, which said: “Following the brewery’s application to register a trade mark we approached them regarding the use of Boss in relation to two beer names in their portfolio.

“This was to avoid conflict and potential misunderstanding regarding the brands Boss and Boss Black, which had been used by the brewery but are long-standing trademarks of our company.
“The discussions clarified the situation in respect of these two brands as well as in relation to textile merchandising for the future. The brewery is able to proceed with the majority of their products without impact on their current branding.”

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Hugo Boss (the fashion house) is hardly to be blamed for enforcing its trademarks.

It is very unlikely they are enforcing their trademark. Lots of entities have a trademarked 'Boss'. There are hundreds if not thousands of them. Ford Motor Company alone has at least three. It's not unlawful. The cease and desist, if based on the word 'boss' alone, is nonsense. Perhaps Hugo Boss does this near automatically any time there is a new application for a trademark related to 'Hugo' and/ or 'Boss' because they are worried it will dilute their brand to have too many companies using the word. But that behaviour is on them, not governments.

 

[Metaphor]

Hugo Boss (the fashion house) is hardly to be blamed for enforcing its trademarks.

It is very unlikely they are enforcing their trademark. Lots of entities have a trademarked 'Boss'. There are hundreds if not thousands of them. Ford Motor Company alone has at least three. It's not unlawful. The cease and desist, if based on the word 'boss' alone, is nonsense. Perhaps Hugo Boss does this near automatically any time there is a new application for a trademark related to 'Hugo' and/ or 'Boss' because they are worried it will dilute their brand to have too many companies using the word. But that behaviour is on them, not governments.

No--the absolute submission of governments to intellectual property-law overreach is to blame. If Hugo Boss did not have the power of the State to harass and intimidate people, the cease and desist letters would hold no power.

And while I believe that Hugo Boss the corporation is probably sending out quite 'speculative' cease and desists, inasmuch as a court of law might not find in their favour if it went to court, it's the ability to trademark common terms that is the problem. It's anti-competition and works to entrench the power of large corporations against everyone else.

 

[Gun Nut]

Hugo Boss (the fashion house) is hardly to be blamed for enforcing its trademarks.

It is very unlikely they are enforcing their trademark. Lots of entities have a trademarked 'Boss'. There are hundreds if not thousands of them. Ford Motor Company alone has at least three. It's not unlawful. The cease and desist, if based on the word 'boss' alone, is nonsense. Perhaps Hugo Boss does this near automatically any time there is a new application for a trademark related to 'Hugo' and/ or 'Boss' because they are worried it will dilute their brand to have too many companies using the word. But that behaviour is on them, not governments.

No--the absolute submission of governments to intellectual property-law overreach is to blame. If Hugo Boss did not have the power of the State to harass and intimidate people, the cease and desist letters would hold no power.

And while I believe that Hugo Boss the corporation is probably sending out quite 'speculative' cease and desists, inasmuch as a court of law might not find in their favour if it went to court, it's the ability to trademark common terms that is the problem. It's anti-competition and works to entrench the power of large corporations against everyone else.

cease and desist letters hold no power (in the US, at least - I guess maybe something is different in the EU?). Here, they are a request that can be completely ignored. They are supposed to be a good faith means of warning that there is a belief that there may be a legal matter at hand with something someone else is doing. A perfectly valid response to one of those letters is "shove it up your ass and I'll see you in court if you have the balls to raise this in our civil court system".

 

[Metaphor]

No--the absolute submission of governments to intellectual property-law overreach is to blame. If Hugo Boss did not have the power of the State to harass and intimidate people, the cease and desist letters would hold no power.

And while I believe that Hugo Boss the corporation is probably sending out quite 'speculative' cease and desists, inasmuch as a court of law might not find in their favour if it went to court, it's the ability to trademark common terms that is the problem. It's anti-competition and works to entrench the power of large corporations against everyone else.

cease and desist letters hold no power (in the US, at least - I guess maybe something is different in the EU?). Here, they are a request that can be completely ignored. They are supposed to be a good faith means of warning that there is a belief that there may be a legal matter at hand with something someone else is doing. A perfectly valid response to one of those letters is "shove it up your ass and I'll see you in court if you have the balls to raise this in our civil court system".

The letters themselves are not court orders, but the problem is that individual companies threatened by them do not know the extent of the legitimacy of the claim and cannot risk being taken to court. Hugo Boss is a company that had revenue of 2.8 billion in 2018. It can afford court gambles on costs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Don't put all the blame on the company here, they don't really have a choice. Not aggressively defending your trademark is a good way to lose it.