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..."
The official trademark opposition decision in BAFF's favour is available on the UK Intellectual Property Office website. This decision under the Trade Marks Act 1994 clearly documents both CAFFUK's demand that BAFF effectively disappear from the public domain, and the rather more conciliatory BAFF correspondence offering a meeting and support in connection with CAFFUK's pre-1975 pensions campaign.
BAFF's successful opposition to CAFFUK's trademark application on statutory grounds was purely defensive in response to CAFFUK's published threats of legal action, and was not intended in any way to affect that association's continued use of their organisational name and logo, or their undoubted right to recruit any member who wished to join them.
This is very much old news, retained here to counter potential misunderstandings. The rest of our archived report merely adds reliable background for crawler validation purposes:
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.
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); and we twice offered a meeting.
Threats
CAFFUK issued a letter on Christmas Eve 2007 threatening BAFF with legal injunctive action, and a claim for "costs and exemplary damages" if we didn't cease operations 'immediately', inform all concerned, and remove BAFF (2006) Ltd from the Companies Register. The supposed basis of the threats was a trademark which CAFF claimed to have 'registered'.
Crucially the threats were also published on both CAFFUK websites.
The truth was that trademark registration had only been applied for, not granted – and even if it had been granted, it still couldn't have any of the legal effects asserted by CAFF. Apart from anything else, BAFF's right to continue using the words "armed forces federation" in its operating title couldn't be revoked by some other party deciding to register a trademark.
The problem for BAFF was that, as a relatively new organisation formally launched in December 2006, we couldn't expect our core target membership necessarily to know that the published pseudo-legal claims had multiple problems in actual law.
Our lawyers clearly explained the legal position in a letter to the CAFFUK correspondent and trademark applicant, and invited him to undertake not to repeat the threats.
The threats were removed from the CAFF websites, but no undertaking was forthcoming not to repeat them. This resulted in an unnecessarily-prolonged trademark dispute which the CAFFUK side lost, appealed, and lost again, which meant that trademark registration was finally refused.
The applicant claimed in his grounds of appeal that his application had been
"meticulously scrutinised for acceptance, in relation to Trade Mark Law ... by ... Counsel on behalf of the CAFF UK".
While that claim was irrelevant anyway to the merits of the appeal, at no stage in this saga did we have the impression that either the applicant, or CAFFUK generally, were actually following legal advice. In particular, no lawyer would have endorsed their master plan of using trademark-related threats to terminate BAFF.
Having begun the dispute with their threats of "exemplary damages and costs" and having obtained and presumably paid for the alleged Counsel's advice, following failure of the appeal the CAFF committee announced that the costs awarded against their Secretary-General were no concern of theirs. He then made two attempts through the courts to block recovery of the lawfully awarded costs; these attempts also failed, and BAFF's costs were successfully recovered along with the costs of enforcement.
Additionally, 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
The dispute was in truth one-sided, in that CAFFUK, while not noticeably engaged with any personnel or veteran issues other than their pre-1975 veteran pension grievance, were claiming 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, was not claiming any kind of monopoly, and had no problem with CAFFUK representing whoever chose to join them. We only ever received one membership enquiry specifically in connection with the pre-1975 pension grievance: this predated the trademark dispute so we directed the gentleman to CAFFUK.
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 at that time. (To complicate that point, the maximum ranks stipulated by CAFF weren't actually equivalent across the services.)
While CAFFUK had made a determined attempt to close down BAFF by threats of legal action, BAFF's successful opposition to CAFFUK's trademark application was on purely statutory grounds, and was never intended to affect any legitimate CAFFUK activity, including continued use of its organisational name and logo.
As far as the law was concerned, no serious case was (or could be) made that either party had been "passing off" itself as the other. The two organisations were distinctively different in their style, in their activities, and in the matters they were concerned with. CAFFUK's two mirrored websites gave the impression of being, understandably, almost wholly concerned with their pre-1975 pension campaign. For its part, BAFF respectfully had no wish to be mistaken for CAFFUK.
UPDATE: In fairness to CAFFUK's ordinary members, we have since learned that their AGM in June 2006 agreed that an official "be requested to pursue informal talks with the British Armed Forces Federation [at that time BAFF Steering Group], with a view to mutual assistance".
Our own offer to support CAFF's pension campaign shows that BAFF would have responded positively to any such CAFF approach. Unfortunately, as evidenced at para 20 of the official trademark opposition decision, any approaches by the CAFF official were either for the BAFF chairman to join CAFF instead, or for BAFF to confine itself to representing "staff officers" – an impractical concept which, among other problems, would have disqualified most BAFF members.
There is now added below a copy of a letter sent to the CAFF official at the end of July 2007, to which he did not reply but pressed on with the trademark application, and then in December with CAFF's unwarranted public threats of legal action.
Unwanted
It might be tempting to see this saga as a 'turf war', a "Peoples's Front of Judea" squabble, or a dispute between two rival organisations competing for the same potential members.
In reality that was never BAFF's position before, during, or after the trademark proceedings. We actually told CAFF in a letter (see below) that 'there is no question of a “turf war” over membership.' We won every stage of the trademark dispute, but it was very much unwanted by BAFF. Our successful case was legally well-founded as the law stood, but would not have been necessary if CAFFUK had simply given (and kept to) the requested undertaking not to repeat the published trademark-related threats.
BAFF opposition to the trademark application was therefore triggered by a clumsy but very deliberate attempt to put BAFF permanently off the road – and 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 such concerns during the trademark dispute procedures, describing our trademark opposition as 'desperate', whereas BAFF made a point of reassuring him that there was no question of our trying to exploit our own (genuinely) registered trademark in a similar manner against CAFF.
Likewise, BAFF's successful 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 see CAFF as rivals or competitors – hence our offer to support their pension campaign, and our steering to CAFF that one and only pre-1975 membership enquiry – but they had every right to compete if they wanted.
Notes
The trademark case is mentioned in two other archived articles: Pre-1975 service pensions, and Why didn't the BAFF founders join CAFFUK instead? A third article, 'Armed Forces Federation': Half a century 1956-2006, shows that both the idea and the phrase 'Armed Forces Federation' had existed for many decades, and were not invented by either CAFF UK or BAFF.
We were 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. The CAFF side were not asked to contribute to these legal costs, and we didn't cash the trademark applicant's personal cheque for the token costs awarded for the final court hearing.
BAFF was represented at the opposition hearing, at the appeal hearing, and at the final County Court hearing by our then chairman, Douglas Young, supported at the court hearing by BAFF Executive Council members Weale and Kiertzner.
References
I wrote to you on 2 July about, in particular, problems with the ‘Membership’ page of the CAFF(UK) website. You said you would reply “as soon as we have had the opportunity to consider its contents which might not be for a while yet due to holidays etc.”
We remain busy with, among other things, the campaign to save the proposed SSAFA Forces Help accommodation for families visiting injured relatives at DMRC Headley Court. It is only the public tip of a very large iceberg of painstaking work by several BAFF members including myself, but I enclose a copy of BAFF’s formal representation to the planning authority. The planning committee meets tomorrow evening.
We’ve done our best, but yet again after sending out representations I am left wondering how many recipients will “check us out” on the internet - and perhaps stumble upon the duff info on your website.
It’s impossible to know how much harm your website is doing to our hard-fought campaigns, but it cannot help if just one politician or official thinks this Federation is composed of “staff officers”, that we have a “conflict of interest”, or even that we are based on your own association.
No offence, but the real “conflict of interest” is surely between your association’s core campaign over the pre-1975 occupational pension issue, and any claim to represent today’s service men and women.
Not long ago I was speaking to one of our founder members who had been wounded on operations. He has been patched up and, after completing a course of rehabilitation at Headley Court, has now rejoined his battalion in Helmand Province. In all honesty you cannot look someone like that in the eye and ask him to wait until you have finally won your pre-1975 pension campaign, before any efforts will be made on his behalf. (He is not a staff officer.)
I stress again there is no question of a “turf war” over membership. I have personally steered in your direction a potential member whose interest was entirely in the pre-1975 pension. There is no problem if you really want to criticise us on your website. What is intolerable is the misleading information for which there never was any factual basis, and my previous letter has put you on notice that it is untrue.
Notwithstanding holidays, I would be glad if you would now instruct the removal of the misleading material from your association’s website within the next few days. Assuming this serious obstacle is removed, my cordial offer to arrange a meeting still stands.
[This was originally a separate report to members]
The question "Why didn't the BAFF founders join CAFFUK instead?" used to be asked from time to time.
One good reason is that it would have been unfair to CAFFUK veterans to have their core pension grievance inevitably receiving less attention than the many urgent issues involving service personnel in the 21st century, such as support for the wounded, single and family accommodation, compensation, manning control, pay and allowances, electoral participation, inquests and inquiries, safety of former local staff, ECHR controversies and so much else.
CAFFUK was formed specifically to campaign for pensions for a group of veterans who left the service before April 1975 without completing a full career. Although CAFF subsequently widened their constitutional remit, in fairness we never saw much evidence of their engagement in issues affecting current personnel or recent veterans.
BAFF offered to support CAFFUK's pre-1975 service pension campaign if they wanted, but CAFFUK eventually responded by sending dire threats of legal action, which they also made public on their two websites. These threats were based on a trademark which CAFFUK claimed to have registered. (In reality they had only applied for registration.)
We have since learned that prior to the trademark-related threats, CAFFUK were requested by their AGM "to pursue informal talks with the British Armed Forces Federation, with a view to mutual assistance", but this did not happen, as detailed in our account of the ensuing trademark dispute: Outcome of CAFFUK trademark attempt to suppress BAFF.
Ironically the only offer of "mutual assistance" during this saga was from BAFF – to which CAFFUK's response was the trademark-related threats.
At one stage during the trademark proceedings, CAFFUK, while rejecting out of hand an attempt by BAFF to end the dispute, offered a merger instead. The BAFF Executive Council agreed to at least hear what they had to say.
While conceding that 'all ranks' could be permitted to join, CAFFUK stressed the paramount importance of reserving all elected positions in any merged association to those 'of and below' the ranks of Lieutenant Commander (RN), Lieutenant Colonel (RM or Army) and Squadron Leader (RAF), as set out in the CAFFUK constitution.
Although no BAFF Executive Council member actually held a current or former service rank above those levels, the ranks quoted by CAFFUK aren’t equivalent across the services. Applying CAFFUK's rank restriction differently to different branches of the armed forces would have been patently unfair, and would also have appeared odd to potential members and others.
We politely sought clarification of which level would apply, but the CAFFUK correspondent remained adamant that the quoted ranks were equivalent. He also insisted that his information was MOD-sourced, which was obviously not the case.
It was clear from this, and from similar examples, that the problem went deeper than a one-off misunderstanding of the service rank structure. Any question of a merger ended there.
BAFF's earlier offer to support CAFFUK's pension campaign had included a proposal to help publicise their parliamentary representations, which were understood to be in preparation at that time:
If appropriate BAFF might, by prior arrangement with you, be able to issue a wholly supportive statement which would at the same time avoid any confusion between the two organisations. This has been your campaign and it is you and your colleagues who deserve the credit. *
When CAFF's parliamentary representations were distributed the following year under the title The Armed Forces Expect That Every English Government Will Do Its Duty, and shown to us by an unimpressed Member of Parliament, it was clear that BAFF would never have endorsed the document in that form.†
CAFFUK refusal to take on board simple easily-checked information about the service rank table did not bode well for successful collaboration over more complex matters, such as producing those parliamentary representations, or continuing BAFF's media and parliamentary engagement with CAFFUK in the loop.
Notes
* The letter containing the offer of support was produced in evidence in the trademark proceedings, and quoted in the official Intellectual Property Office decision.
† The MP's actual words were "I'm surprised at Colin Challen", Mr Challen being a fellow MP who was supportive of the Armed Forces Pension Group's campaign about the same pre-1975 pension grievance. In this case we were able to explain that AFPG were not responsible for the document in question, but it seemed to us an example of unintended damage to the pension campaign.
Links