Advertisement

Local clothing line forced to rebrand

By 24 April 2014 16

zandc

A small local business has been forced to rebrand itself after receiving a trademark infringement notice from retail giant Zara.

Zara issued the notice earlier this month to Canberra mother Neda Luketic for her baby clothing line ‘ZaraBumba’, ordering her to rebrand the company because the name was too similar to theirs.

Ms Luketic launched the online boutique children’s clothing company in 2011, naming the clothing line after her three year old daughter Zara. The business is run from Ms Luketic’s home and relies heavily on social media to generate online sales.

Ms Luketic is now in the process of relaunching her company’s website and stitching new labels onto her products.

The company has been rebranded to Z and Co.

Please login to post your comments
16 Responses to
Local clothing line forced to rebrand
taninaus 4:35 pm
24 Apr 14
#1

I always have a bit of an issue with big fish flexing their muscles this way on little fish.

dungfungus 6:59 pm
24 Apr 14
#2

This is a similar case to the local aviation business named Virgin Helicopters who were monstered in the courts by that other aviation entity with the same name.

screaming banshee 8:26 pm
24 Apr 14
#3

Real shame as she would have had a good chance of beating it……but at great financial cost

KB1971 8:46 pm
24 Apr 14
#4

I wonder what the reason was behind picking the name? The CT article didn’t elaborate this morning and her immediate rollover makes me think that she picked it on purpose.

KB1971 8:47 pm
24 Apr 14
#5

dungfungus said :

This is a similar case to the local aviation business named Virgin Helicopters who were monstered in the courts by that other aviation entity with the same name.

I am not surprised.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 11:05 pm
24 Apr 14
#6

KB1971 said :

I wonder what the reason was behind picking the name? The CT article didn’t elaborate this morning and her immediate rollover makes me think that she picked it on purpose.

It says it is named after her daughter, Zara.

Mr Evil 10:56 am
25 Apr 14
#7

Good to see these big companies are focussed on looking after their trademark rights, whilst trampling all over the rights of their foreign (sweatshop?) workers……..

Primal 4:18 pm
25 Apr 14
#8

Trademark holders are obliged to defend their marks. This isn’t one bit surprising.

curmudgery 11:50 am
27 Apr 14
#9

Oh, this is wonderful.

I might open a General Store and call it WoolworthPickup. My great-uncle’s middle name was Woolworth and it’s not the same as that other company’s name because I’ve added the word ‘Pickup’. D’ya see? Clever, eh.

My brother builds his own bicycles and is looking for a brand name. Whad’aya think of GiantBike?

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for this lady. None whatsoever.

montana 3:23 pm
30 Apr 14
#10

would be funny if she then gets served by Tiffany and co

p1 5:33 pm
30 Apr 14
#11

curmudgery said :

Oh, this is wonderful.

I might open a General Store and call it WoolworthPickup. My great-uncle’s middle name was Woolworth and it’s not the same as that other company’s name because I’ve added the word ‘Pickup’. D’ya see? Clever, eh.

My brother builds his own bicycles and is looking for a brand name. Whad’aya think of GiantBike?

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for this lady. None whatsoever.

You are cynical. What it shows is that you should extensivily google any name before starting any business. Twenty years ago this would not have been a problem, as Zara™ would have trouble claiming that there was any confusion with their brand, as they would have trouble claiming there was any overlap in their market place. Now, with the internet, two mums in two garages on oposite sides of the world are in the same market place.

Felix the Cat 10:41 am
01 May 14
#12

curmudgery said :

Oh, this is wonderful.

I might open a General Store and call it WoolworthPickup. My great-uncle’s middle name was Woolworth and it’s not the same as that other company’s name because I’ve added the word ‘Pickup’. D’ya see? Clever, eh.

My brother builds his own bicycles and is looking for a brand name. Whad’aya think of GiantBike?

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for this lady. None whatsoever.

Funny you should mention bikes. Specialized bikes recently threatened to sue a Canadian bike shop/cafe owner because he had the word “Roubaix” in the business name and that happens to be a model of Specialized bike (and a town in France…). Also, more recently, Specialized threatened legal action against another bike manufacturer, Neil Pryde, over the name of one of their models of bikes, the Alizé. Specialized claimed it was to similar to a model that they have called Allez.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/12/bikes-and-tech/specializeds-disastrous-trademark-case-is-unnecessary-to-defend-the-brand_310878

http://road.cc/content/news/115804-neil-pryde-bikes-renames-its-alize-bike-following-trademark-dispute-specialized

curmudgery 11:54 am
01 May 14
#13

Cynical? Moi?

Yes, googling one’s business name ideas would be Step 1. Checking with ASIC would be Step 2.

What might or might not have happened 20 years ago is irrelevant – this happened last week.

I don’t think the fashion organisation called Zara is really a mum in a garage. See http://www.zara.com/

My brother – the one who makes bikes – he has a son named Malvern. How about ‘Malvern Son’ for a new brand of bike. That’d be OK wouldn’t it? He’s such a lovely little bloke.

p1 4:25 pm
01 May 14
#14

curmudgery said :

Cynical? Moi?

Yes, googling one’s business name ideas would be Step 1. Checking with ASIC would be Step 2.

What might or might not have happened 20 years ago is irrelevant – this happened last week.

I don’t think the fashion organisation called Zara is really a mum in a garage. See http://www.zara.com/

My brother – the one who makes bikes – he has a son named Malvern. How about ‘Malvern Son’ for a new brand of bike. That’d be OK wouldn’t it? He’s such a lovely little bloke.

So are you insisting she was malicious in her naming? Or are you suggesting that you should be allowed to be equally unthoughtful? (remembering, of couse that her unthoughtfullness in choosing a name resulted in her needing to rebrand).

thatsnotme 6:22 pm
01 May 14
#15

Keep in mind that there’s no actual ruling that she’d infringed on Zara’s trademark. A small scale suburban operator, faced with the might of Zara, simply chose not to fight. There’s every chance that if she’d fought, she would have won and been allowed to keep her name – but we’ll never know.

MrBigEars 10:46 am
02 May 14
#16

The name isn’t the issue. She failed to register the ZaraBumba trademark, which would have enabled her to tell Zara Corporation where to get off.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.