header-logo header-logo

28 June 2020
Issue: 7893 / Categories: Legal News , Patents
printer mail-detail

Minnow out-swims big fish in hair care war

The Supreme Court has rejected French cosmetics giant L’Oréal’s application to appeal a patent infringement case brought by Californian start-up Olaplex

L’Oréal must therefore stop selling its Smartbond hair products from this week, in compliance with an injunction granted by the High Court.

The Supreme Court rejection last week, on the grounds the application ‘does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance’, brings to a close a major part of litigation between Olaplex and L’Oréal that began in 2016. The courts are still to make a decision on damages.

Santa Barbara company Olaplex launched its Bond Multiplier product, developed by two chemists in a garage and designed to protect hair during bleach treatments, in 2014. L’Oréal launched its competing Smartbond product in 2015. Olaplex brought patent infringement proceedings, succeeding in the High Court and Court of Appeal, L’Oréal v Olaplex [2019] EWCA Civ 1943.

Dominic Hoar, senior associate at Hogan Lovells, which acted for Olaplex, said: ‘We are delighted with the decision by the Supreme Court, which means that Olaplex can finally look forward to some redress for L'Oréal's infringing acts.

‘The decision shows that the UK courts will protect true innovators, no matter the size of the infringer or how strong its willingness to fight.’ 

Issue: 7893 / Categories: Legal News , Patents
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll