Blake Morgan helped a landlord secretly trademark all the names of a community football club which it wants to evict, provoking a backlash which has forced the firm to hide the details of the partner in charge of the matter.
In a letter to non-league Dulwich Hamlet Football Club this week, Blake Morgan revealed that last October it secretly registered 'Dulwich Hamlet Football Club', 'The Hamlet' and 'DHFC' as trademarks on behalf of its client, investment fund Meadow Residential. Blake Morgan told the club to stop using its own name and demanded that they “no longer be used on any printed literature and any online activity including websites and Twitter”.
The move to cripple the club came four years after Meadow bought DHFC's ground for £5.7m with the intention of building over it. Its plans were scuppered when it lost a court battle with Southwark Council over its proposed £80m residential development. The club was already reeling from a surprise £121,000 bill for back rent which Meadow presented on Monday, and a threat to evict the club if it doesn't pay up within 21 days.
Fans including Danny Baker and Gary Linker have castigated Meadow for its mercenary approach, and Blake Morgan for agreeing to take part in underhand namenapping. "If I were Bill Gates I would buy this despicable company", said Baker, "forcing them from the ground tonight - and their snidey yellow-eyed lawyers - and I would sack the fucking lot of them. Then bulldoze their worthless buildings for more football grounds".
A Hamlets fan who is a solicitor told RollOnFriday that Blake Morgan's tactic was "to make it impossible for the club to function" by registering all available IP. He said it was "more sinister", because although DHFC may have the grounds to overturn the registered marks based on existing goodwill, the landlord and Blake Morgan were "relying on the fact that they have no money to fight a claim, therefore the only purpose can really be to put the club out of business".
In a statement Blake Morgan said, "We were asked to provide advice on trade mark law as part of our client's complex discussions about land at Champion Hill. We're aware commercial conversations between Meadow Partners and Dulwich Hamlet FC are ongoing, but are not party to these and cannot comment further".
DHFC is known for being a forward-thinking club, fundraising for LGBT causes and holding charity games for Syrian refugees. But no longer. ROF's solicitor source said, "Had I been the lawyer receiving that instruction I think within 5 minutes I’d have realised the dubious motives and potential for huge amounts of negative publicity weren’t worth the few £k they got for the work – a pretty silly instruction to take".
The backlash appears to have been so severe that Blake Morgan has removed from its website the profile of the partner whose email address was given on its widely-circulated correspondence with the club.
Tip Off ROF
In a letter to non-league Dulwich Hamlet Football Club this week, Blake Morgan revealed that last October it secretly registered 'Dulwich Hamlet Football Club', 'The Hamlet' and 'DHFC' as trademarks on behalf of its client, investment fund Meadow Residential. Blake Morgan told the club to stop using its own name and demanded that they “no longer be used on any printed literature and any online activity including websites and Twitter”.
The move to cripple the club came four years after Meadow bought DHFC's ground for £5.7m with the intention of building over it. Its plans were scuppered when it lost a court battle with Southwark Council over its proposed £80m residential development. The club was already reeling from a surprise £121,000 bill for back rent which Meadow presented on Monday, and a threat to evict the club if it doesn't pay up within 21 days.
Fans including Danny Baker and Gary Linker have castigated Meadow for its mercenary approach, and Blake Morgan for agreeing to take part in underhand namenapping. "If I were Bill Gates I would buy this despicable company", said Baker, "forcing them from the ground tonight - and their snidey yellow-eyed lawyers - and I would sack the fucking lot of them. Then bulldoze their worthless buildings for more football grounds".
 |
Blake Morgan (l) |
A Hamlets fan who is a solicitor told RollOnFriday that Blake Morgan's tactic was "to make it impossible for the club to function" by registering all available IP. He said it was "more sinister", because although DHFC may have the grounds to overturn the registered marks based on existing goodwill, the landlord and Blake Morgan were "relying on the fact that they have no money to fight a claim, therefore the only purpose can really be to put the club out of business".
In a statement Blake Morgan said, "We were asked to provide advice on trade mark law as part of our client's complex discussions about land at Champion Hill. We're aware commercial conversations between Meadow Partners and Dulwich Hamlet FC are ongoing, but are not party to these and cannot comment further".
DHFC is known for being a forward-thinking club, fundraising for LGBT causes and holding charity games for Syrian refugees. But no longer. ROF's solicitor source said, "Had I been the lawyer receiving that instruction I think within 5 minutes I’d have realised the dubious motives and potential for huge amounts of negative publicity weren’t worth the few £k they got for the work – a pretty silly instruction to take".
The backlash appears to have been so severe that Blake Morgan has removed from its website the profile of the partner whose email address was given on its widely-circulated correspondence with the club.
Comments
An application for a declaration of invalidity can be made by anybody, including the Trade Mark Registrar (s47(3)), so it's entirely possible that the UKIPO might take action itself to sort out this one or that any aggrieved fans can get on with making an application. And the effect of invalidity is that the TM is treated as never having been registered at all.
Given the huge amounts of outrage on this one DHFC should easily be able to crowdfund a legal response and if they do it looks to me to be a slam-dunk. Although that's on the basis of 15 minutes' research and I'd defer to anyone who specialises in this area.
TLDR: This is not just grubby but stupid behalf of both BM and their client.
I agree an SRA complaint is in order, this is cut and dry a breach of the Code of Conduct and Outcomes.
Not a good week then
Would urge you to donate.
But how far can a solicitor go in damaging the interests of non-clients while pursuing instructions which are, at least, lawful? If your client tells you to make the other side an offer they can't refuse, then you might be straying into unlawful activity. But what if the instructions are lawful but, dare I say it, make you uneasy (even if it does not extend to horses' heads)? You are, are you not, a hired gun?
The Law Society Gazette ran an article in 21 September 2001 titled “Death of the hired gun”. Maybe the Gazette was wrong. Maybe there are some lawyers who will do just what they are asked to do. The article concerned a disciplinary case in which a solicitor was fined £25,000 and ordered to pay substantial costs. The solicitor had pursued his client’s interest energetically – too energetically. Counsel for the solicitor ran the “hired gun” defence. The defence failed.
In March 2015, the SRA produced a document headed “Walking the Line”. This document uses the term “hired gun” four times. For example: “It has been argued that lawyers owe little or no duties beyond those to their clients and that they are "hired guns”. The legal and regulatory rules governing professional practice, however, clearly cover impropriety arising from behaviour that was in the best interests of the client.”
And “Although solicitors must fearlessly advance their clients' cases, they are not "hired guns" whose only duty is to their client. They also owe duties to the courts, third parties and to the public interest. Breach of those duties can give rise, for example, to wasted costs orders or to findings of misconduct.”
It will be interesting to see if the SRA will take note of the actions of the hired gun in this case. And I would add that young solicitors starting out on their careers should take heed. Or you could become a consigliere and change your name to Tom.
Disgusted at my old firm’s role in this.