Toy giant Jellycat sue Next and Hamleys over cuddly copycat accusations

Toy giant Jellycat sue Next and Hamleys over cuddly copycat accusations The company It is seeking injunctions preventing Next and Hamleys from ‘passing off’ their products - Bookmark - CommentsGo to comments Toy giant Jellycat is taking it’s rivals to court over accusations of copycat cuddlies. The company has accused Next and Hamleys of copying the toys with “substantial” damages over claims they made the similar products of “inferior quality”, according to High Court documents. Jellycat has seen huge success in recent years with their range of hundreds of cuddly toys, including food items such as a gherkin and a croissant. Their prices range from £25 to over £100. Barristers for the company said in court documents that it has two main ranges of cuddly toys: the Loveables range, which is based on animals, and Amuseables, which is based on almost 500 everyday objects and foods. But they claimed that a Next cushion and doorstop in the shape of a biscuit and multiple Hamleys’ plushies in the shape of various foods and items including a football and basketball, are “copied” from Jellycat’s products. Jellycat said that it was not “presently able with confidence to estimate the financial value” of either claim, but that it believes the value will be “substantial”. It is also seeking injunctions preventing Next and Hamleys from “passing off” their products as Jellycat’s in future. Hamleys is yet to file a defence to the claim against it, but barristers for Next said the retail chain denies “that any infringing acts have been carried out”. A hearing in either claim is yet to take place. In written submissions, Jellycat’s barrister Stuart Baran said that the firm sells products in more than 70 countries. He said that the Amuseables “have become cherished worldwide as both soft toys and collectables”, and that more than 11 million have been sold in the UK. Mr Baran continued that the “key features” of the Amuseables range’s designs mean that they “have come to denote and be distinctive of the soft toys of the claimant and none other, and are relied upon by the relevant consumers as such”. But he said that the Next and Hamleys’ products showed a “high similarity” with Jellycat’s products, which amounted to “a misrepresentation” as they could lead customers to believe they are Jellycat’s items. He said it was “reasonable to infer” that Next and Hamleys either copied Jellycat’s products, made their items with reference to Amuseables products or “had the Amuseables products in mind”, and that both companies “intended such misrepresentation to arise”. Mr Baran continued that both the Next and Hamleys’ toys were of “inferior quality” to those made by Jellycat, which damaged the company’s reputation and took away sales it would otherwise have made. In Next’s defence to the claim, barrister Ashton Chantrielle said that while the company continued to sell its items, this was lawful. He said that claims that they were copied from Jellycat’s products were “wholly unparticularised”, and that allegations that Next had passed off its items as Jellycat’s were “misconceived”. He added that the Next products were different from Jellycat’s as “the former are not toys”, adding: “Next is not aware of Jellycat currently selling or offering for sale doorstops or cushions. “In the premises, it is not understood how the Next products can divert sales away from Jellycat.” He continued: “There is no risk that consumers will be deceived into thinking that there is a collaboration with and/or endorsement by Jellycat.” “It is denied that Jellycat has suffered any loss and/or damage caused by Next having carried (out) the acts complained of,” the barrister concluded. Join our commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies Comments