THE Doc Marten's boots company, which is seeking to block Dunnes Stores from selling below half price lookalikes of its famous footwear, is currently locked in world wide litigation over cheap copies, the High Court has been told.
Mr Paul Gallagher, senior counsel for the manufacturers and distributors of "Does", told Mr Justice Brian McCracken that Dunnes Stores had been trading in almost identical lookalikes of the shoes. Judge McCracken yesterday reserved judgment on an application to restrain Dunnes from dealing in the lookalike footwear until the trial of an action in which the manufacturers and distributors allege Dunnes is breaching its trade mark and passing off the cheap brands as the genuine article.
Mr Rory Brady, senior counsel for Dunnes, said his clients had been trading in the cheaper brands for almost a year. He said Dunnes was supplied by manufacturers in the UK, Italy and Holland and all of the lookalike products clearly bore the company's own brand St Bernard's label.
At the outset of a day long hearing the court heard that the plaintiffs, the R Griggs Group Ltd.. Elizabeth Maertens, Dr Herbert Funck and Dr Martens International Trading Company, were not proceeding with applications to sequestrate the assets of Dunnes Stores or its directors or have its directors committed to prison for contempt of court.
Mr Gallagher, who appeared with Mr John Gleeson, said the R Griggs Group Ltd., which held a worldwide exclusive licence on the Doe Martens trade mark, had appointed - Ellard Sales Ltd., French Church Street, Cork, as its Irish agent for Does.
He told the court a combination of unique features made the overall appearance of the footwear so distinctive it was used to promote the brand.
Dozens of pairs of Doe Martens shoes and boots lined a table in the High Court alongside identical lookalike brands, as well as a collection of boots and shoes brought in by Mr Brady from other outlets to suggest the plaintiffs did not have a monopoly on a particular style of boot.
Ms Charlotte Perkins, a property controller of the Griggs Group, Northamptonshire, said the use of a combination of features which were distinctive of Does in the children's boots on sale in Dunnes was clearly for the purpose of deceiving members of the public.
She said that in Dunnes in Tallaght, Co Dublin, and its Douglas, Co Cork, outlets the defendants had advertised "Does" for sale. In Cork and Dublin outlets Dunnes staff, when asked if they sold Doe Martens boots, had replied yes and pointed out their lookalike displays.
She said the genuine children's boot sold for £39.99p, while the lookalikes sold for between £12,99p and £15. Matheson Ormsby & Prentice, Dunnes solicitors, had denied in a letter that their clients were guilty of any passing off or breach of trade mark.
Later an undertaking was given by Dunnes not to sell or display lookalike products but this had allegedly been breached in Cork An interim injunction was granted to the plaintiffs on August 30th. It was further alleged the court order was breached in Dunnes' store in Dublin.
Mr Brady said many of the features claimed to be exclusively distinctive of "Does" appeared on a number of other boots which had been bought in other outlets and which were not stocked by Dunnes Stores. The plaintiffs were seeking to prove they had a monopoly he submitted they were not entitled to.
Dunnes footwear chief, Mr Frank Farragher, said the shoes sold by his company formed part of the range of three different manufacturers and were freely available in the market. The most significant feature of the alleged copies was that they were clearly identified with the St Bernard brand, while "Does" bore a distinctive tag with the words "Dr Martens" or "Air Wair with bouncing soles".
He said footwear of the type being sold by Dunnes were colloquially known as "Does". People who purchased this type of footwear would be likely to describe what they were buying as "Does" but would not believe they were buying products manufactured by the plaintiffs. "Does is one of those words that has entered the English language as describing a particular type of product," he said.
Mr Justice McCracken's decision is expected next week.
