White rose copyright action

[DarkieBoy]

What a ridiculous amount of money to spend on the court case for the right to own the Yorkshire rose symbol (in Humphrey Smith's eyes). Lawyers are alwasy going to do well out of Mr Smith, with the never ending court cases that he stirs up.

That's what I thought...it's over ?1666.00 per Samuel Smith's pub (based on 300 pubs).  That could have covered the PRS for years for each pub and the gained revenue from the jukebox (if that's your cup of tea).

DB.

[OldBreweryDrinker]

Quite agree DB, if he put his legal spend to better use eg doing up some of his pubs, or putting the music back in for functions etc. He could make it back very quickly. The jukeboxes were always a good laugh on a Friday or Saturday night. TV's not so sure about as the staff end up watching the soaps.

[OnTheDrink]

The only person who's referred to ?500,000 costs incurred by Sams is the spokesman for Cropton Brewery. Part of the judge's comments are interesting...

As I observed at the outset of this judgment, the costs are out of all proportion to what is at stake, particularly from Cropton Brewery's perspective. The legal process appears to have caused the parties to become entrenched in their positions rather than seeking common ground. I suspect that the costs will themselves quickly have become an obstacle to settlement. Whether the fact that Cropton Brewery has been represented under two conditional fee agreements is a factor in this I cannot say. But what I can say is that in future disputes of this nature the possibility of mediation should be explored as soon as is practicable.    

Conditional Fee Arrangement indicates that Cropton had a 'No win, no fee' solicitor so I think they might just be egging up the costs they incurred, and possibly the costs incurred by Sams as well, because while it will have been very expensive, I'm not sure it would be quite that high.

The full judgement is online athttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1879.html if anyone can really be bothered to wade through it.

[OnTheDrink]

That's what I thought...it's over ?1666.00 per Samuel Smith's pub (based on 300 pubs).  That could have covered the PRS for years for each pub and the gained revenue from the jukebox (if that's your cup of tea).

DB.

HS had a right to protect the trademark but as the judge said, both parties should have mediated the issue long before it ended up in court.  So, if it was half a million, and I doubt it would have been that much, even half that would be money far better spent elsewhere.

If this was a public company the shareholders would have had good cause to remove the directors responsible, and probably take their own legal action to recover the money.

[kettlesimon]

This whole farce seems pretty irrelevant compared to what our armed forces are going through abroad. Could i suggest that next time SS/Cropton have a spare ?500K that it be given to Help for Heroes charity

[OldBreweryDrinker]

I am sure the money could have been much better spent for the armed forces or another charity. Looking at the last ever accounts for SS, they made a donation of ?80k in the 81/82 tax year. But at that time Humphreys mother was alive and the company was very well run.

[DarkieBoy]

I am sure the money could have been much better spent for the armed forces or another charity. Looking at the last ever accounts for SS, they made a donation of ?80k in the 81/82 tax year. But at that time Humphreys mother was alive and the company was very well run.

A donation of ?80,000 in 1981/82 would have been quite significant.  However, corporate donations to charity sometimes have to be taken with a pinch of salt.  Fortnum & Mason's is part-owned by a "Trust" who donate to charity - The Tory Party!

DB.

[OldBreweryDrinker]

I would have been a big donation for the time and for what SS was turning over at the time. Understand it could be to do with tax , eg donating something to Tadcaster may be.

[OldBreweryDrinker]

The only person who's referred to ?500,000 costs incurred by Sams is the spokesman for Cropton Brewery. Part of the judge's comments are interesting...

As I observed at the outset of this judgment, the costs are out of all proportion to what is at stake, particularly from Cropton Brewery's perspective. The legal process appears to have caused the parties to become entrenched in their positions rather than seeking common ground. I suspect that the costs will themselves quickly have become an obstacle to settlement. Whether the fact that Cropton Brewery has been represented under two conditional fee agreements is a factor in this I cannot say. But what I can say is that in future disputes of this nature the possibility of mediation should be explored as soon as is practicable.    

Conditional Fee Arrangement indicates that Cropton had a 'No win, no fee' solicitor so I think they might just be egging up the costs they incurred, and possibly the costs incurred by Sams as well, because while it will have been very expensive, I'm not sure it would be quite that high.

The full judgement is online athttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1879.html if anyone can really be bothered to wade through it.

Interesting to note section 23 about the number of pubs operated by the brewery. The magical 200  Look at the areas

[DarkieBoy]

The only person who's referred to ?500,000 costs incurred by Sams is the spokesman for Cropton Brewery. Part of the judge's comments are interesting...

As I observed at the outset of this judgment, the costs are out of all proportion to what is at stake, particularly from Cropton Brewery's perspective. The legal process appears to have caused the parties to become entrenched in their positions rather than seeking common ground. I suspect that the costs will themselves quickly have become an obstacle to settlement. Whether the fact that Cropton Brewery has been represented under two conditional fee agreements is a factor in this I cannot say. But what I can say is that in future disputes of this nature the possibility of mediation should be explored as soon as is practicable.    

Conditional Fee Arrangement indicates that Cropton had a 'No win, no fee' solicitor so I think they might just be egging up the costs they incurred, and possibly the costs incurred by Sams as well, because while it will have been very expensive, I'm not sure it would be quite that high.

The full judgement is online athttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1879.html if anyone can really be bothered to wade through it.

Interesting to note section 23 about the number of pubs operated by the brewery. The magical 200  Look at the areas

Section 23 reads as follows:
Samuel Smith operates over 200 tied public houses. These are concentrated in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Nottinghamshire, but there are some scattered throughout the UK including in London. Samuel Smith also sells its beers in various kinds of free premises, which include pubs, working men's clubs, social and sports clubs, restaurants and caf?s. Again, these are concentrated in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Nottinghamshire, but are also to be found elsewhere. The bottled beers are also available via various different kinds of retail premises, but not chain supermarkets. There are retail outlets selling the beers nationwide, but there are areas where the nearest outlet is some distance away.

Not sure why they mention Nottinghamshire (three pubs) over say Cheshire (13 pubs) or Lincolnshire (13 pubs and a "brewery"), which both have more pubs.

Again, it states "over 200 tied public houses", which in my mind excludes social clubs (which may be owned by Samuel Smith Old Brewery.

DB.

[OldBreweryDrinker]

The only person who's referred to ?500,000 costs incurred by Sams is the spokesman for Cropton Brewery. Part of the judge's comments are interesting...

As I observed at the outset of this judgment, the costs are out of all proportion to what is at stake, particularly from Cropton Brewery's perspective. The legal process appears to have caused the parties to become entrenched in their positions rather than seeking common ground. I suspect that the costs will themselves quickly have become an obstacle to settlement. Whether the fact that Cropton Brewery has been represented under two conditional fee agreements is a factor in this I cannot say. But what I can say is that in future disputes of this nature the possibility of mediation should be explored as soon as is practicable.    

Conditional Fee Arrangement indicates that Cropton had a 'No win, no fee' solicitor so I think they might just be egging up the costs they incurred, and possibly the costs incurred by Sams as well, because while it will have been very expensive, I'm not sure it would be quite that high.

The full judgement is online athttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1879.html if anyone can really be bothered to wade through it.

Interesting to note section 23 about the number of pubs operated by the brewery. The magical 200  Look at the areas

Section 23 reads as follows:
Samuel Smith operates over 200 tied public houses. These are concentrated in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Nottinghamshire, but there are some scattered throughout the UK including in London. Samuel Smith also sells its beers in various kinds of free premises, which include pubs, working men's clubs, social and sports clubs, restaurants and caf?s. Again, these are concentrated in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Nottinghamshire, but are also to be found elsewhere. The bottled beers are also available via various different kinds of retail premises, but not chain supermarkets. There are retail outlets selling the beers nationwide, but there are areas where the nearest outlet is some distance away.

Not sure why they mention Nottinghamshire (three pubs) over say Cheshire (13 pubs) or Lincolnshire (13 pubs and a "brewery"), which both have more pubs.

Again, it states "over 200 tied public houses", which in my mind excludes social clubs (which may be owned by Samuel Smith Old Brewery.

DB.

Strange. Rochdale has about 30 i think

[DarkieBoy]

The only person who's referred to ?500,000 costs incurred by Sams is the spokesman for Cropton Brewery. Part of the judge's comments are interesting...

As I observed at the outset of this judgment, the costs are out of all proportion to what is at stake, particularly from Cropton Brewery's perspective. The legal process appears to have caused the parties to become entrenched in their positions rather than seeking common ground. I suspect that the costs will themselves quickly have become an obstacle to settlement. Whether the fact that Cropton Brewery has been represented under two conditional fee agreements is a factor in this I cannot say. But what I can say is that in future disputes of this nature the possibility of mediation should be explored as soon as is practicable.    

Conditional Fee Arrangement indicates that Cropton had a 'No win, no fee' solicitor so I think they might just be egging up the costs they incurred, and possibly the costs incurred by Sams as well, because while it will have been very expensive, I'm not sure it would be quite that high.

The full judgement is online athttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1879.html if anyone can really be bothered to wade through it.

Interesting to note section 23 about the number of pubs operated by the brewery. The magical 200  Look at the areas

Section 23 reads as follows:
Samuel Smith operates over 200 tied public houses. These are concentrated in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Nottinghamshire, but there are some scattered throughout the UK including in London. Samuel Smith also sells its beers in various kinds of free premises, which include pubs, working men's clubs, social and sports clubs, restaurants and caf?s. Again, these are concentrated in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Nottinghamshire, but are also to be found elsewhere. The bottled beers are also available via various different kinds of retail premises, but not chain supermarkets. There are retail outlets selling the beers nationwide, but there are areas where the nearest outlet is some distance away.

Not sure why they mention Nottinghamshire (three pubs) over say Cheshire (13 pubs) or Lincolnshire (13 pubs and a "brewery"), which both have more pubs.

Again, it states "over 200 tied public houses", which in my mind excludes social clubs (which may be owned by Samuel Smith Old Brewery.

DB.

Strange. Rochdale has about 30 i think

Rochdale would count under Lancashire.

DB.

[ian]

The only person who's referred to ?500,000 costs incurred by Sams is the spokesman for Cropton Brewery. Part of the judge's comments are interesting...

As I observed at the outset of this judgment, the costs are out of all proportion to what is at stake, particularly from Cropton Brewery's perspective. The legal process appears to have caused the parties to become entrenched in their positions rather than seeking common ground. I suspect that the costs will themselves quickly have become an obstacle to settlement. Whether the fact that Cropton Brewery has been represented under two conditional fee agreements is a factor in this I cannot say. But what I can say is that in future disputes of this nature the possibility of mediation should be explored as soon as is practicable.    

Conditional Fee Arrangement indicates that Cropton had a 'No win, no fee' solicitor so I think they might just be egging up the costs they incurred, and possibly the costs incurred by Sams as well, because while it will have been very expensive, I'm not sure it would be quite that high.

The full judgement is online athttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1879.html if anyone can really be bothered to wade through it.

Interesting to note section 23 about the number of pubs operated by the brewery. The magical 200  Look at the areas

Section 23 reads as follows:
Samuel Smith operates over 200 tied public houses. These are concentrated in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Nottinghamshire, but there are some scattered throughout the UK including in London. Samuel Smith also sells its beers in various kinds of free premises, which include pubs, working men's clubs, social and sports clubs, restaurants and caf?s. Again, these are concentrated in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Nottinghamshire, but are also to be found elsewhere. The bottled beers are also available via various different kinds of retail premises, but not chain supermarkets. There are retail outlets selling the beers nationwide, but there are areas where the nearest outlet is some distance away.

Not sure why they mention Nottinghamshire (three pubs) over say Cheshire (13 pubs) or Lincolnshire (13 pubs and a "brewery"), which both have more pubs.

Again, it states "over 200 tied public houses", which in my mind excludes social clubs (which may be owned by Samuel Smith Old Brewery.

DB.

Strange. Rochdale has about 30 i think

Rochdale would count under Lancashire.

DB.

Is that a Annex of Yorkshire

[DarkieBoy]

The only person who's referred to ?500,000 costs incurred by Sams is the spokesman for Cropton Brewery. Part of the judge's comments are interesting...

As I observed at the outset of this judgment, the costs are out of all proportion to what is at stake, particularly from Cropton Brewery's perspective. The legal process appears to have caused the parties to become entrenched in their positions rather than seeking common ground. I suspect that the costs will themselves quickly have become an obstacle to settlement. Whether the fact that Cropton Brewery has been represented under two conditional fee agreements is a factor in this I cannot say. But what I can say is that in future disputes of this nature the possibility of mediation should be explored as soon as is practicable.    

Conditional Fee Arrangement indicates that Cropton had a 'No win, no fee' solicitor so I think they might just be egging up the costs they incurred, and possibly the costs incurred by Sams as well, because while it will have been very expensive, I'm not sure it would be quite that high.

The full judgement is online athttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1879.html if anyone can really be bothered to wade through it.

Interesting to note section 23 about the number of pubs operated by the brewery. The magical 200  Look at the areas

Section 23 reads as follows:
Samuel Smith operates over 200 tied public houses. These are concentrated in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Nottinghamshire, but there are some scattered throughout the UK including in London. Samuel Smith also sells its beers in various kinds of free premises, which include pubs, working men's clubs, social and sports clubs, restaurants and caf?s. Again, these are concentrated in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Nottinghamshire, but are also to be found elsewhere. The bottled beers are also available via various different kinds of retail premises, but not chain supermarkets. There are retail outlets selling the beers nationwide, but there are areas where the nearest outlet is some distance away.

Not sure why they mention Nottinghamshire (three pubs) over say Cheshire (13 pubs) or Lincolnshire (13 pubs and a "brewery"), which both have more pubs.

Again, it states "over 200 tied public houses", which in my mind excludes social clubs (which may be owned by Samuel Smith Old Brewery.

DB.

Strange. Rochdale has about 30 i think

Rochdale would count under Lancashire.

DB.

Is that a Annex of Yorkshire

I think NOT! 

DB.

[OldBreweryDrinker]

The only person who's referred to ?500,000 costs incurred by Sams is the spokesman for Cropton Brewery. Part of the judge's comments are interesting...

As I observed at the outset of this judgment, the costs are out of all proportion to what is at stake, particularly from Cropton Brewery's perspective. The legal process appears to have caused the parties to become entrenched in their positions rather than seeking common ground. I suspect that the costs will themselves quickly have become an obstacle to settlement. Whether the fact that Cropton Brewery has been represented under two conditional fee agreements is a factor in this I cannot say. But what I can say is that in future disputes of this nature the possibility of mediation should be explored as soon as is practicable.    

Conditional Fee Arrangement indicates that Cropton had a 'No win, no fee' solicitor so I think they might just be egging up the costs they incurred, and possibly the costs incurred by Sams as well, because while it will have been very expensive, I'm not sure it would be quite that high.

The full judgement is online athttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1879.html if anyone can really be bothered to wade through it.

Interesting to note section 23 about the number of pubs operated by the brewery. The magical 200  Look at the areas

Section 23 reads as follows:
Samuel Smith operates over 200 tied public houses. These are concentrated in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Nottinghamshire, but there are some scattered throughout the UK including in London. Samuel Smith also sells its beers in various kinds of free premises, which include pubs, working men's clubs, social and sports clubs, restaurants and caf?s. Again, these are concentrated in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Nottinghamshire, but are also to be found elsewhere. The bottled beers are also available via various different kinds of retail premises, but not chain supermarkets. There are retail outlets selling the beers nationwide, but there are areas where the nearest outlet is some distance away.

Not sure why they mention Nottinghamshire (three pubs) over say Cheshire (13 pubs) or Lincolnshire (13 pubs and a "brewery"), which both have more pubs.

Again, it states "over 200 tied public houses", which in my mind excludes social clubs (which may be owned by Samuel Smith Old Brewery.

DB.

Strange. Rochdale has about 30 i think

Rochdale would count under Lancashire.

DB.

Is that a Annex of Yorkshire

I think NOT! 

DB.

Getting technical on boundaries now