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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll