The High Court has restrained the use of the “Claddagh Jewellers” trade mark by a company formerly known as Claddagh Ring Limited, pending determination of a trade mark dispute or further court order.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey made the interlocutory orders on 2 July 2020 in proceedings brought by Philip Fried against his brother Andrew Fried and the company. Neither defendant attended the hearing or appeared on the motion. The judge said he had considered the affidavits before him despite their absence.
Philip Fried claims he owned the mark, registered in his name in Ireland in 2012 and with the European Union Intellectual Property Office in 2016. He alleges that Andrew Fried used a 2005 power of attorney to transfer the mark to Claddagh Jewellers Limited in 2018 without his authority or consent, and that a further transfer into their joint names followed in April 2019. No defence had been filed.
Andrew Fried’s affidavits disputed Philip Fried’s beneficial ownership. He said the mark had always been intended to belong to Claddagh Jewellers Limited and had been registered in his brother’s name for administrative convenience. He acknowledged arranging assignments using the power of attorney, but said this was done to formalise what he considered the company’s existing ownership. He also said his new Celtic jewellers business did not use the Claddagh Jewellers mark and had offered an undertaking not to trade under that name before the case concluded. No undertaking was before the court at the hearing because neither defendant attended.
The judge held that there was a fair question to be tried about whether Philip Fried’s rights had been infringed and whether he was the mark’s sole owner. He said the power of attorney’s use to transfer the mark without consent was open to question. On the balance of convenience, he found that interim protection was warranted, noting the mark’s established reputation and the risk of irreparable harm from unlicensed use.
The orders restrain the second defendant from using the mark and prohibit both defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s registered mark, pending trial or further order. The judge declined to make broader orders covering all associated intellectual property and goodwill, or all alleged unlawful use, because those terms lacked sufficient clarity. The case had not reached trial, and ownership remained to be determined.
The court listed the matter for 9 July 2020 to hear submissions on costs and consider directions for trial if the parties could not resolve their dispute.