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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll