|
Expert Advice wins for Montpellier Marble |
|
Despite initial advice not to pursue the case, Montpellier Marble recently successfully settled its action against Marble 4 Life after a lengthy dispute.
Commenting on the case, Montpellier Marble co-owner Eve Iravani said, “We feel that by demonstrating our firm resolve to protect what we have created, we are not only sending a clear message to Marble 4 Life but to all within the industry that we are prepared to fight our corner.”
The action was based on the claim that Marble 4 Life’s Column and Frame fire surrounds were ‘copies’ of Montpellier’s Tamara and California fireplaces designed by co-owner Michael Fateh.
Initially Montpellier had sought to resolv ethe matter view its’ membership of ACI (Anti Copying in Design).
In a separate statement, Dids McDonald ACID’s Chief Executive said, “It is unfortunate that Marble 4 Life and its director did not adhere to the terms of the ACID mediation as agreed with Montpellier, giving Montpellier no option to protect its intellectual property rights, but to issue proceedings. Marble 4 Life’s membership of ACID has not been renewed”.
Tara Parkes, an Intellectual Property lawyer at Rickerby’s of Cheltenham added, “The good news was that costs were saved by negotiating settlement prior to trial, with Montpellier obtaining the result not dissimilar to that which it could have achieved if successful at trial.”
Way back in 2001, the award-winning Tamara and California designs were launched at the Hearth and Home exhibition and it was not until June 2004 it came to the company’s attention that Marble 4 Life were offering for sale its Column and Frame fireplaces, being reproductions of the Tamara and California respectively.
Advertisements for the Column and Frame fireplaces appeared in a trade magazine and the fireplaces were again exhibited in the vicinity of the Hearth & Home Show held from 12-14 June 2005.
Montpellier had initially sought to resolve the dispute using ACID’s dispute resolution services but this failed.
As Eve adds, “Despite two reasonable offers of settlement, one of which was the same terms as the mediation with ACID, Marble 4 Life and it’s director refused and only offered to discontinue and walk away. With only a week to go before the trial, however, common sense must have prevailed and a settlement was reached.”
Tara Parkes told us, “The potential benefits of a membership of an organisation like ACID are apparent in this case, due to terms of settlement being agreed following a mediation. It is therefore unfortunate that it was necessary to resort to litigation, but Eve and Michael’s determination, combined with our expertise, resulted in a successful outcome.”