Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Notice served and Dulwich Hamlet locked out of ground

They are, the lying cunts. That's why Peter Bennison doesn't work for Hadley any more.
I recall him being a prick at the fans consultation evening after the Hadley application went in. Looming ominously at the bar and interjecting without introduction with vague threats based on half truths "we could put a fence around the Astro turf pitch tomorrow". Well that has proven spectacularly incorrect now hasn't it?
 
Do we know Forresters are kosher and not working for the other side? Unsolicited approaches always make me a bit :hmm:
Given the public roasting and ridicule that the other lot have received it would take a certain brand of self destructing lawyers to intentionally bring more of the same on themselves.
 
Given the public roasting and ridicule that the other lot have received it would take a certain brand of self destructing lawyers to intentionally bring more of the same on themselves.

I'm sure they're cool and I'm just being paranoid. I just don't trust anything where big developers are concerned.
 
I know someone that used to work for Forresters, they are a legitimate company.
I can find out more if need be.
 
I emailed Helen Hayes yesterday and received a response today from her. Apologies if same message posted elsewhere.

Dear Mr Jones,

Thank you very much for writing to me with your concerns about the future of Dulwich Hamlet Football Club (DHFC).

The Club is an important and much-loved local institution, which is valued not only for the enjoyment of the game which it provides, but also for its role in enabling talented young footballers from a diverse range of backgrounds to develop their skills and for its wider role in the local community and its support for a wide range of charitable causes.

It has been extremely concerning to see the actions of an irresponsible developer putting the future of the club at risk and behaving in such an unacceptable way. As you know, the club’s landlord Meadow Residential LLP, have recently taken punitive measures against the Club following the withdrawal of their planning application which was not compliant with Southwark Council or London-wide planning policies. These measures include claiming £120,000 in back-dated rent, banning DHFC from the grounds on Champion Hill, and serving the Club with a legal notice that it no longer had the right to use its own name or initials. The planning policy issues concerned a lack of affordable housing put forward in the proposal, and insufficient justification for building on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), which can only be built on in exceptional circumstances.

I note that Meadow has recently released a statement offering to give back the rights to the name of the club, amongst a continued commitment to bring the club back into supporter ownership. However, I remain concerned that these offers are dependent on certain conditions being met, which will be increasingly difficult to reach. Indeed, I am concerned that the breakdown of trust between DHFC, the developers, and Southwark Council, means that the best option is for Meadow Residential to release the land, either into public ownership, under Southwark Council or any other responsible interested party, in order to secure the future of this important community asset.

I have been in close contact with DHFC, Dulwich Hamlets Supporters Trust (DHST) and Southwark Council on this issue. On Monday 6 March I met with DHST and football committee representatives at the Houses of Parliament alongside my colleagues Dr Rosena Allin-Khan MP, Harriet Harman MP and Lord Roy Kennedy to discuss recent developments.

I am pleased to have secured a 30 minute Adjournment Debate in the House of Commons on Friday 16 March, in order to raise the issues DHFC is facing with a government minister.

I understand that Southwark Council is doing everything possible to secure a viable long term future for the club, and I know that the leader of the Council, Cllr Peter John, and London Mayor Sadiq Khan, wrote to Meadow this week, urging them to re-assess their continued involvement with the Club.

Please rest assured that I will continue to represent my constituents concerns on this issue and do everything possible to ensure a viable long term future for our much loved Dulwich Hamlet Football Club on its current site.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Helen

Sent on behalf of Helen Hayes MP
Member of Parliament for Dulwich and West Norwood
 
so when the fence went up and the toilets opposite turnstiles closed they already had in mind closing down the club
when they first came on the scene, I reckon that was their intention. all they've ever been interested in is 80 mils worth of luxury flats, and they would sell their own unborn children, never mind us right down the river to get it. I sincerely hope, even if it means a spell away from champion hill is necessary, the wind of change is with us and we proper fuck up their ambitions.. to quote you, onwards and upwards (with a little sidestep).
 
It seems that the law world is pretty much unanimous on this. Blake Morgan's attempt to bully Dulwich has backfired massively.

The club is now consulting with solicitors while also reportedly exploring ground sharing options. But in a new twist, the club also received a letter from law firm Blake Morgan, representing Greendales IP (a new subsidiary of Meadow Partners). The letter states that the developer had registered trademarks for ‘Dulwich Hamlet Football Club’, ‘The Hamlet’ and ‘DHFC’, and stated that the club should no longer use the marks on any printed literature and in any online activity, including websites and social media.

The UK filings, for classes 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 41 and 43, were made in October 2017 and entered the register early last month. The focus on use of the marks in printed literature suggests that the aim is to tackle criticism of Meadows, something backed up by a statement the company gave to The Independent: “This [move] follows repeated breaches of the licence by the club, together with unwarranted personal attacks on the company, which has funded the club for a number of years and without which the club would not have survived as long as it has.”

If silencing criticism was the aim, the effort has arguably failed as Dulwich Hamlet FC took to social media to highlight the alleged “pettiness” of the move, garnering online support and asking for experts in trademark law to get in touch if they want to give the club “a hand”.
The dispute also raises some tactical questions with respect to the use of trademarks. Speaking to World Trademark Review, Cerryg Jones, partner at Browne Jacobson, noted: “The mere fact that you are first to register a particular trademark does not necessarily mean it gives you the right to prevent third parties from using something that is the same or confusingly similar in circumstances where there are prior unregistered rights.

Hypothetically, if a football club has been involved in its football club-related activities for over 100 years, and someone else comes along and opportunistically registers the mark for football related activities, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they can prevent you from carrying on. In fact, the owner of the unregistered right could, in certain circumstances, try to reapply pressure the other way by seeking to invalidate the trademark registration on the basis of those prior rights. There may be some intricacies involved but, in principal, the fact that someone has registered a trademark does not necessarily trump someone that has been using that trademark earlier.”

As to possible next steps for the club, he opines: “The club could challenge the registration either on the basis of prior rights that cover some of these activities or alternatively it could be alleged that the trademark registration was applied for in bad faith. It is possible to get a trademark invalidated for those reasons.”

Chris McLeod, partner and trademark attorney at Elkington and Fife, concurs, explaining: “There may be a lot more to this than we are aware of in terms of the dispute, so my comments should be taken in that context. However, it seems to me that the applications were arguably filed in bad faith because the club – rather than the ground – would be the natural owner of at least the trademarks relating to the name of the club. Accordingly, as the owner of the ground is effectively threatening to sue the club, the logical response would be to threaten to counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity.”
We have written at some length about the importance of football clubs securing – and monitoring use of – their IP, and McLeod notes that “the clear takeaway is that it is worth spending the relatively small amount of money on trademark registrations to pre-empt or at least reduce the prospect of such disputes”. Of course, budgets are finite and for semi and non-professional clubs in particular, intellectual property is unlikely to be top priority. Similarly, engaging lawyers to counter threats may be an unattractive expense. There are options available though, McLeod suggesting: “The club is unlikely to have deep pockets, so perhaps it should consider seeking assistance from IP Pro Bono.”

As noted above, there are two sides to every story (World Trademark Review has reached out to Meadow Partners for comment and will update this piece if we receive a response) and it remains to be seen just how this dispute plays out. However, another interesting dimension to point out relates to the blowback that can occur for law firms when a letter they send goes viral.
One respondent to Dulwich Hamlet’s tweet about the cease and desist letter states: “Be a real shame if Blake Morgan LLP got a string of negative Google Reviews off the back this” (a number of negative reviews have indeed been lodged over the past 12 hours), while another states: “This is dreadful publicity for you. I hope the money is worth dragging your company name through the mud.” The firm has posted its aforementioned statement on Twitter but that too has sparked a stream of negative comments over its involvement in the trademark applications.

Whether it comments further also remains to be seen, but the incident serves as a potent reminder that, when cease and desist letters go viral, it is not only the rights holder that can find itself under fire.
“A registration doesn’t necessarily trump earlier use”: takeaways from Dulwich Hamlet’s trademark dispute - Lexology
 
Back
Top Bottom