In May 2011 it was reported to members that "The 4-year campaign to suppress BAFF by 'The Combined Armed Forces Federation UK' [CAFFUK] ... has finally been seen off, after a series of rulings in BAFF's favour. This tedious 'People's Front of Judea' saga is therefore at an end..."
The attempt to suppress BAFF* followed our offer to support CAFFUK's pre-1975 forces pension campaign (but only if they wanted, and in a way which made it clear that they, and not BAFF, were the campaigners on that issue).
* Note: direct and indirect references in this article to 'BAFF' relate to the former BAFF (2006) Ltd, but are retained here for archival purposes.
Threats
CAFFUK responded on Christmas Eve 2007 with a letter threatening legal injunctive action and a claim for 'costs and exemplary damages' if BAFF didn't cease operations 'immediately', inform all concerned, and remove BAFF (2006) Ltd from the Companies Register. The supposed basis of these threats was a trademark which CAFF claimed to have 'registered'. Crucially the threats were also published on both CAFFUK websites.
Trademark registration had really only been applied for, not granted – and even if it had been granted, it couldn't possibly have had the legal effects which CAFF had asserted.
The problem for BAFF was that, as a new organisation operating since December 2006, we couldn't expect our core target membership necessarily to know that the pseudo-legal claims published on both CAFFUK websites had multiple problems in actual law.
With the statutory deadline for opposing the trademark application approaching, our lawyers carefully and accurately explained the legal situation in a letter to the CAFFUK correspondent and trademark applicant, and asked him to undertake not to repeat the threats.
His fallure to give any such undertaking resulted in a prolonged trademark dispute which the CAFFUK side lost, appealed, lost again, and finally failed in an attempt by Court proceedings to block recovery of the lawfully awarded expenses. Separate CAFF attempts to cancel BAFF's company and trademark registrations both failed at the first hurdle. CAFFUK also opposed a private members' bill which simply promoted the concept of independent representation for armed forces personnel; BAFF supported it.
One-sided dispute
The dispute was essentially one-sided, in that CAFFUK, while not noticeably involved in any service personnel issues other than their pre-1975 veteran pension grievance, were claiming to hold an exclusive right to recruit and represent "other ranks" of HM Forces.
Conversely BAFF, while making a case for future arrangements which would not have affected CAFF's pension campaign, did not claim any kind of monopoly, and had no problem with CAFFUK representing whoever chose to join them. We referred to CAFFUK the one and only membership enquiry that we ever received in connection with their pension grievance.
Despite CAFFUK's strenuous efforts to frame the dispute as "other ranks" versus "officers", "senior officers", or even "staff officers" (it varied), all 15 members of BAFF's Executive Council, whose serving or former ranks ranged from corporal upwards, would have been equally eligible for committee roles under CAFFUK's own constitution. (To complicate that issue, the maximum ranks specified by CAFF weren't actually equivalent across the services.)
While CAFFUK had made a determined attempt to suppress and terminate BAFF by unwarranted threats of legal action, BAFF's successful technical opposition to CAFFUK's trademark application was never intended to affect any legitimate CAFFUK activity, including continued use of its organisational name and logo.
Unwanted dispute
It cannot be emphasized enough that although we won every stage, the dispute was very much unwanted by BAFF. Our successful opposition to their trademark application was legally well-founded as the law stood at that time, but would not have been necessary if CAFFUK had simply undertaken as requested not to repeat the published trademark-related threats.
Although the BAFF opposition to the trademark was of a fairly technical nature, it was triggered by a very deliberate attempt to put BAFF off the road and, failing the requested undertaking not to repeat the threats, the prospect of more of the same in the event of the trademark being successfully registered. The CAFF representative did less than nothing to remove that concern during the trademark dispute procedures.
Conversely, BAFF's opposition to statutory registration of a trademark in no way questioned CAFF's right to exist, to operate, and to recruit members. We didn't regard CAFF as competitors – hence our offer to support their campaign – but they had every right to compete if they liked. We told CAFF during the dispute that there was, of course, no question of our attempting to use our own (genuinely) registered trademark in a similar manner against them.
References
The dispute is mentioned in an archived article: Pre-1975 service pensions. Another article "Why didn't the BAFF founders join CAFFUK instead?" may still be available to logged-in members. A third article, 'Armed Forces Federation': Half a century 1956-2006, makes the point that both the idea and the phrase 'Armed Forces Federation' had existed for many decades, and were not invented either by CAFF UK or by BAFF.
We are very grateful for the advice and assistance provided by our then solicitor Edward Cooper of Russell, Jones & Walker (RJW – now incorporated in Slater and Gordon), and by senior and junior counsel instructed by RJW. We were represented at the opposition hearing, at the appeal, and at the final County Court hearing by our then chairman, Douglas Young.