header-logo header-logo

Minnow out-swims big fish in hair care war

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll