bit of a kunundrum combined with a heads up and wonder if anyone else has encountered this.
self employed bod registered with HMRC, advertised under their name, website top of google search for their name, etc.
Today they get a call from someone who set up a copany under the self employed business name (but with Ltd at the end of it) a few days ago and now wants to come to an "ammicable" arrangement about the self employed guy continuing to use the name that they are already trading under.
Seems to me like a new form of the webname theft con where websites of famous companies were snapped up wholesale and sold to the people who should have held them in the first place for eye watering sums.
Luckily the self employed guy in question here has legal cover so I've advised them to speak with their lawyers in the morning but what are other peoples feelings on this.
Is the real con here that people will start doing this on the basis that too few small businesses buy legal protection so its cheaper to be extorted than to pay for legal representation?
Seems that its just one con / fraud after another at the moment!
Looking forwards to hearing others input.
kind regards,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
that was absolutely perfect, going to call him now to discuss (I remember having a dream once that we kept normal office hours in this business, lol)
your a star,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
From what you say it sounds like this SE bod has invested in his identity but has not taken basic steps to protect his investment.
Even for myself, and well before the internet came along, when I practised as a partnership then sole trader under a business name, I registered the Limited version of that business name. I have always advised clients to take this kind of safety-first action. Nowadays, along with limited company names, and trade marks, and more, I advise registering many forms of the business domain name - not just .co.uk and .com and .eu et al, but hyphenated variants, and so on.
One client omitted to renew the non-hyphenated version of <her name>.com and someone nipped in - to say "nicked it" would be incorrect - and it cost upwards of £4,000 to get it back even though the nipper-in did not defend the case. And that was in the easy "I have the Ltd co and the trading history and the other related domains and used to have this domain, and the miscreant has uploaded some of my images on the domain" cyber-squatting scenario, not the more troublesome situation in which this SE bod apparently finds himself.
This sounds different from cyber-squatting - for one thing, the economics is different - registering a domain costs pennies so a miscreant can register vast numbers and just needs one to strike lucky - whereas registering a limited company costs far more. *Either* the Ltd Co owner is genuine in which case the SE bod should count himself lucky they've approached him amicably - *or* he has been targeted, the Ltd Co owner having done their homework on the value of the Google search ranking and so on, and probably having made sure their legal position is watertight.
As the IPO link says - it can be difficult and expensive to win a passing-off case.
The SE bod probably needs specialist IPO advice. Last time I was involved in this, just a few years ago, there were only a few legal firms in the UK who would take this on at less-than-eye-watering fee levels (and the £4,000 mentioned above was relatively non-eye-watering good value for money).
It sounds like the SE bod should also consider contingency plans.
But lets hope the Ltd Co owner is genuine. Indeed I have made genuine approaches like this - on my own behalf and on behalf of others - over the years. Sadly - and to no-one's benefit - not a single one has yielded a positive response. Even when the approach was "we have similar domain names; how about a "we're X-Y-Z; if you're looking for XYZ, click here" link on our respective home pages?".
We had a trademark issue when we first started Optegra and subsequently have had a few copyright infringements so am quite familiar with the IPO site....
I remember my solicitor being shocked that I had not checked trademarks when I chose my company name which was a fair point - fact is it is always one of those things that no-one thinks of until it is too late...
I checked companies house and thought that was enough... It wasn't...
I always advise on incorporation now that trademarks are searched... if clear them consider registering your own and make sure copyrights are clear.
It should be part of every incorporation or new business setup procedure - but rarely is!!
Normal office hours... haha I quit practice as I was tired of 60 hour weeks (and timesheets!) now I do 60 hour weeks but no timesheet woohoo!
Jeremy
__________________
"Quite simply the best add on for Sage we have ever invested in.."
Want to see what all the fuss is about? Click here: OptegraMRP
just got off the phone... Why do clients think that we will be as fresh at 10:30 at night as we are at 10:30 in the morning, lol.
you're completely right. The guy had the nouse to take out legal protection but had not protected the identity of his business.
My original lines of enquiry were along the same lines as yours in that either my clients business was targeted or the case is genuine.
If genuine though why would one immediately contact an existing business to allow them to continue using their name. That smacks of knowing that you were treading on toes before setting the business up.
I'm arranging a meeting with the client where we are going to go through various scenarios including the benefits of him incorporating his business under a new name and see what damage limitation we can do over the amount that he's invested in advertising.
An interesting twist to this is that he actually already owns all of the website addresses (.co.uk, .com, etc.) for the name of a limited company that didn't actually exist at the time that he purchased them but rather legitimately related to his own business.
I have not given any detailed advice on what he needs to do next but rather told him to do nothing until he has spoken to the solicitors of his legal cover in the morning.
I know that he's already tried calling the direcor of the new company back but I've needed to ask him to hold off and let solicitors talk to solicitors rtaher than throwing a spanner in the works.
kind regrads,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
lol Jeremy... 60 hours... you part timer... Mind you, if I subtracted the hours that I spend looking at this site rather than working!
I remember timesheets.
Every hour has to be chargable to something or its your own time.
Hated that. You spent half your time double charging to one pot because there was a budget there and didn't charge to what you were working on as all the time had been used already.
Budgets... Most meaningless figures out there with absolutely non relevance to the reality of what people are doing as those setting the budgets base such on how much they can get away with asking for, not what the project actually needs.
But I digress, a huge amount of sound advice in this thread that considering the nightmare evening that I've just had should be compulsory reading for all site members.
Cheers again jeremy, that link was priceless (and is now bookmarked).
kind regards,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Well, all sorts of interesting developments today including a nice little snippet that when someone sets up as a limited company companies house approving the name is not the final say in the matter but rather anyone has 30 days to lodge an official complaint about the use of the chosen name.
As indicated above, without protection of a trademark complaints are unlikely to get anywhere and Companies house reply went along the lines of "tough cookies" in this instance but just making people aware of the 30 day rule.
Also what seemed to be being suggested is that if someone is trading unprotected by trademark and then someone sets up a company with the same name, the self employed person can still register the trademark within the 30 day window and trademark trumps incorporation. (if they had not been trading under the name before the limited company existed incorporation would have won).
The downside is that it's £175 to attempt to lodge the trademark and if it fails you don't get your money back.... But if it works the person whose set up a limited can keep the number but they'll have to change their name before they've even started trading.
I'll keep everyone informed as things pop out of the woodwork
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
