In May 2011 we reported to members that "The 4-year campaign to suppress BAFF by 'The Combined Armed Forces Federation UK ... 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..."
This was about a trademark dispute which CAFFUK had created by the following threats of infringement proceedings, which they posted to BAFF at Christmas Eve 2007, and published on CAFFUK's two public websites:
"The Title, Letterhead, Logo and Trade Mark of The Combined Armed Forces Federation UK (CAFF UK) is registered for copyright protection with the UK Intellectual Property Office.
You are required by The Combined Armed Forces Federation UK to immediately remove the title, letterhead, logo and trade mark of BAFF (2006) Ltd from the entire public domain including its website and Company House registration.
Any failure to comply with the above requirement and inform those to whom it may concern immediately, will be regarded as a continued act of piracy and an injunction will be applied for to prevent any further breach of copyright. A claim for costs and exemplary damages will also be made."
But CAFFUK hadn't really 'registered' any trademark with the UK Intellectual Property Office.
A CAFFUK representative had in fact applied for trademark registration (not 'copyright protection') of its 'Union Jack and crown' logo. The proposed trademark had been published by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) for possible objection, and was still open for objection.
Even if the CAFFUK trademark really had been registered, CAFF had no grounds of legal action against BAFF. We had neither copied their trademark, nor were we pretending to be them. Trademark registration couldn't confer exclusive rights to the phrase 'armed forces federation' which CAFF hadn't created, was already in use by BAFF, and had existed in the English language for many years before the formation of CAFF:
So the published pseudo-legal threats had multiple problems, with no basis in actual law. But, as a brand new organisation at the time, BAFF couldn't expect our target membership of serving personnel and veterans necessarily to know that.
All this happened after BAFF had offered support for CAFFUK's pre-1975 pension campaign (but only if they wanted), and had referred to CAFF the only membership enquiry BAFF ever received about their pension grievance,
Our lawyers explained the situation to the CAFFUK representative and invited him to undertake not to repeat the threats, but as he didn't do that, it was decided to oppose the trademark application.
After two rounds of evidence and a hearing, the trademark dispute decision was in BAFF's favour but the CAFFUK representative decided to appeal, almost certainly against legal advice funded from CAFF veterans' subscriptions.
After another hearing the appeal was also unsuccessful, so trademark registration of the CAFFUK logo was refused.
Having made the original 'exemplary damages' threats and having presumably authorised and funded the trademark application, the CAFFUK committee then informed us that the legally-enforceable costs awarded against their 'Secretary-General' were no concern of theirs.
Their representative also refused to pay, and finally made two attempts through the courts to block recovery of the debt. He was again unsuccessful, and the awarded costs were recovered in full by High Court Enforcement Officers, along with the additional court and enforcement costs.
References and notes
The dispute is also mentioned in:
External link: Trade mark victory for the Queen [NB: relevant trademark law has changed since our case.]
While the time and attention demanded by this prolonged saga did cause damage as intended, our volunteers' best efforts continued throughout. See for example BAFF in the news (2008-2010), which covers a period in the middle of the dispute.
