shutterstock-176144333-converted--1
Illustration: Max Griboedov / Shutterstock.com
2 September 2016Trademarks

Asos settles trademark dispute with Assos

Online retailer Asos has reached a settlement in trademark disputes with Swiss clothing manufacturer Assos and German menswear retailer Anson’s Herrenhaus.

Asos will pay a total of £20.2 million ($26.8 million) in a final settlement to the two European companies.

In April 2015, the English Court of Appeal ruled that the online retailer did not infringe a Community trademark (CTM) owned by Assos.

The appeals court ruled that Asos had caused “damage to the distinctive character” of Assos by using a similar name, and that there was a likelihood of confusion with Assos, but it granted Asos’s ‘own name’ defence and cleared the online retailer of infringement.

Assos had appealed against the decision to the Supreme Court, but the appeal was rejected in July 2015 because it did not raise any points of law that are of “public importance”.

Despite winning their case in the UK, Asos was still subject to lawsuits in Germany, France and the US.

Anson had challenged Asos in 2011, according to the Financial Times.

Nick Beighton, CEO of Asos, said: "We are pleased to have put this litigation behind us. Entering into this settlement at this juncture is the right commercial decision for our business."

The payment will be reported as an exceptional item at the year end.

A company spokesperson explained that Asos could now become more active in the sports and athletic leisure clothes sectors.

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Trademarks
29 July 2015   The UK Supreme Court has refused to hear the Assos v Asos trademark dispute because it does not raise any points of law that are of “public importance”.