[ad_1]
Customers enter a Zara clothing store in Paris on May 11, 2020.
As a famous bard William Shakespeare Once upon a time, “What’s in a name?” he praised. It makes a lot of sense in the legal and business world. Just last month, entrepreneur Amber Cothrie Kotri has scored a major legal victory against retail giant Zara, which tried to block its trademark application for its sustainable clothing brand Zanna, arguing that the brands are too similar.
In the year Kotri, who launched Zana Home online in 2018, and opened her first brick-and-mortar store in Darlington, England, a year later, filed to trademark her company in December 2020. When the house of ZANA tried to register the name Kotriri, it received a notice of opposition, followed by a letter from lawyers representing wholesale retailer Zara, claiming that Kotri’s brand name was similar to theirs and confusing to its customers. Kotri said the protestors soon found legal correspondence suggesting the names were too similar and gave her 3 months to stop using the Zana House name for her company, Kotri told Exchange.
Kotri was also strongly advised to change the name of the business and remove all trademarks under the “Zana” moniker. After mulling over the decision internally and sharing her story on social media after garnering overwhelming support, Kotri decided not to sign the proposed deal and fight for her brand instead. After years of hard work and dedication, instead of renaming her business, she said the two brands would not be confused and continued her efforts to trademark the name.
In turn, Zara said it was not suing or seeking monetary damages, but that it had intended to reach an “amicable settlement” with Cotri from the beginning. Zara opposed Couture’s trademark application on two main grounds: 1) the names Zana and Zara are too similar and 2) the similarity may cause confusion among their customers. Finally, after both parties submitted arguments, testimonies and other related materials to the court, the hearing of the dispute was held on May 24, 2022.
For her part, Kotriri presented testimony and exhibits about the meaning of the word “Zana” in Albanian, her desire to mislead customers and the difference between the names Zara and Zana, as well as her business focus and ethics. On the contrary, Zara’s legal counsel Julia King It provides material to illustrate how the prefix “house” is commonly used in fashion and the two brands, the variation of the Zara name, and the way in which early courts distinguish Zara’s long-standing name as a core brand. The world of business and fashion.
During the trial, King argued that the name Zana was just “one small brushstroke” from her client and that Kotri’s business was not distinct enough. King seems to be arguing a domino effect, stating that the Coterie brand could pose a “serious threat” to Zara, especially if the fashion market begins to be infiltrated by brands that look too similar. In response, Kotri, who represented herself in court, argued that there would be no confusion between the two brands.
Finally, the judge Matthew Williams It decided that the relationship customers could have between Zara and Zana House was so important that it could tarnish the chain’s reputation and business. Specifically, in a 29-page opinion issued on August 8, 2022, Judge Williams laid out the differences between the two brands, ultimately ruling that they were not likely to confuse customers: “I am satisfied that the differences between the marks. My earlier analysis is sufficient to avoid direct confusion to the average consumer,” he said.
He acknowledged some of King’s points, including the fact that “Zara is undoubtedly a popular label.” However, the judge said, “The name of a mark does not give rise to a presumption of likelihood of confusion.”
In addition, the judicial opinion prepared by Judge Williams stated that the distinctive contrast between the two brands was sufficient to prevent opposition to Couture’s trademark application. According to several differences, Cotri’s brand included the full name of the house of ZANA, while Zara’s name was only four letters: “Currently, the marks are visually different because the competitor’s mark consists of eleven letters, while the opponent’s mark has only four letters.” The additional words ‘house’ at the beginning of the competing mark create a significant visual difference.’
He also noted that while the names Zana and Zara may sound similar, most customers may recognize that they are not referring to the same company: the letters r and n.”
Third, the judge pointed to the absence of malicious intent on Kotri’s behalf, stating that there was no evidence that Kotri had intentionally used Zara’s name for profit: “I accept that the choice of name was motivated by Ms. Kotri’s Albanian heritage.” I can’t find any plausible reason for the idea of magical fairy tale-made clothes, and the use of the name.
While Judge Williams acknowledged that there were some similarities between Zara and Zana, including that both brands sold similar items (clothing and accessories) and that both names were unique, they were insufficient to show direct or indirect confusion. Therefore, Zara’s objection was considered unsuccessful.
Although this decision was welcomed by Kotri and her team, it could also have wider implications. Other small business owners in the Kotri area may have been intimidated by Zara’s efforts to initiate this move. Zara is owned by the Spanish fashion group Inditex and has more than 3,000 stores in 96 countries worldwide, generating millions of dollars in revenue each year. However, Kotri was determined not to give up on her dream of growing her business by selling sustainable clothing and locally-made handicrafts.
“I want to fight this because I don’t want to tell my kids that I built something out of nothing,” said Kotriri, a mother of three, who was shocked by Zara’s approach. She said. “What will he teach them?”
For Kotri, this decision to protect her brand is clearly as personal as it is good business. You can even say that it reaches home.
The word “Zana” means fairy tale in her husband’s native Albania, where the company’s sustainable manufacturing studio is located and where most of the clothing is made. For Kotri, the company’s name is not only a smart marketing tool, but one that she and her colleagues hold close to their hearts: “We chose the name Yezana Bet because of our beautiful clothes in a fairy tale. “Our name is very meaningful and personal to us,” she said on Change.org, the website that hosted the original petition to gather followers’ support in Kotri’s efforts to preserve the name.
Zana’s recent branding success will not only help Kotri continue to grow her business, but could also have an impact on similar branding battles that Zara has taken on down the line. Zara has approached UK-based ceramics maker Zara McLaughlin and Iranian-inspired spice business owners Zaravand, in an effort to leverage and retain the brand. Kotri told the BBC that she would say to anyone in her position, “…keep fighting because it’s worth it in the end.”
“You know your business better than anything, you know the meaning behind the name, and if you build it and then fight for it, I couldn’t tell my kids that I closed my business because someone told me to.” she said.
While trademark wars between fashion brands are nothing new, you’re sure to see more battles in the legal and business world continue to happen in the near future.
Law and Crime asked the parties for comment.
Read the decision below.
[Image via THOMAS COEX/AFP via Getty Images]
Got a tip we should know? [email protected]
[ad_2]
Source link
