on 24-04-2014 08:21 AM
A Canberran mother who runs a baby-clothing line from her Casey home has been threatened with legal action by retail giant Zara because her business name, Zarabumba, was considered too similar to their own.
Neda Nuketic was sewing at home while 38 weeks pregnant when she decided to launch the businesses.
“I had no idea whether I was going to have a boy or girl at that stage,” she said. “It turned out to be a girl who we named Zara and I named my business after her.”
on 24-04-2014 09:03 AM
That company has shot themselves right in the foot by doing that to a little home business that doesn't even compete with them in the line of clothing it makes.
What a selfish bunch they are, the name is of no consequence to them at all. I hope that big company gets itself a severe boycott ...
on 24-04-2014 09:32 AM
There used to be a little take away store here. The owner was named Jack, and he seriously had immigrated from Hungary.
He named his take away store Hungry Jacks.
They made him change his store name, even though he had direct links to the name (which is usually a defence)
24-04-2014 09:37 AM - edited 24-04-2014 09:38 AM
A while ago the international liquor company Absolut used their big guns to legally threatened another business using the same name.
I think it was on the Sydney northern beaches.
It was a women's boutique clothing store. Go figure.
on 24-04-2014 10:08 AM
I guess the bigger company might have had a valid complaint then.
In this case though, the name is entirely different. In my opinion, the complainants are bullies most likely wanting to draw attention to themselves, no matter how distasteful. Hope it cost them a small fortune ...
The lady concerned is now doing so well, good for her, and all power to her!
on 24-04-2014 10:48 AM
My neighbour calls his business Macca's. The big M tried that on him but since it is his name, they had to back down, lol.
on 24-04-2014 12:32 PM
on 24-04-2014 12:42 PM
That's called Passing Off, an emerging field in intellectual property law. It is even applied to images/logos that aren't copyrighted/trademarked
the fact it was a similar product would probably have been enough to "cause sufficient confusion"
*rolls eyes*
on 24-04-2014 12:43 PM
pretty sure this is fairly old news actually.....I remember reading about this quite a while ago.
Good on the Mum and hope she does really well-seem to remember she got a lot of help from this same big company in that they contributed to costs for registering a new business name etc and marketing. I remember that her new label name included the word 'peach' or 'peaches' in it.....something like pear and peaches or similar.Reckon there might have been some other monetary incentives used as plying material too.......
This big company apparently had the rights to this label name on an international trademark registration(?)-don't ask me how they got that approved, being that they have used a christian name. Maybe the boss is called Zara and had been in business for a length of time. Beats me.
on 24-04-2014 02:49 PM
Zara objected to her choice of business name, and papers from their solicitors fell into her PO Box on Tuesday last week.
“They were demanding I close down my business name and everything to do with it including my website, branding and advertising,” she said.
“I was pretty gutted when I read their demands. I’d been trading under this name for three years and I wouldn’t have thought my business was a challenge to Zara.”
Ms Luketic said the Zara’s solicitors gave her a deadline of Good Friday to respond, although she asked for an extension after seeking legal counsel.
“My lawyers told me you could fight them but it’s going to cost you a hell of a lot of money to see this one out,” she said.
now Z and Co. previously known as Zarabumba