Hanley shop's Olympic display banned: Florist was told Coca Cola could sue
A FLORIST has been ordered to take down a tissue paper Olympic rings display from her shop window – because it breaches trademark rules.
Trading standards officers have warned Lisa Cross that she faces being sued by official Games sponsors, including Coca Cola, for the unauthorised window display of Olympic symbols.
-

RULES ROW: Lisa Cross, right, and shop worker, Cristy Marshall, with the Olympic display which she was told to remove from the window of her shop.
Lisa's La Rose Florists shop, in Leek Road, Hanley, is the only business so far to receive a warning.
The crackdown was ordered by games organiser Locog which called for a check on the unauthorised use of Olympic logos ahead of the arrival of the torch relay to Stoke-on-Trent on Wednesday.
Would you like a professional to review your CV and give you some constructive feedback?
contact BlueSky CVs for an honest review
Terms: 1 per person
Contact: 01538 710408
Valid until: Friday, May 24 2013
Lisa, who runs the shop with business partner Tony Finney, said: "The trading standards officers said they really loved the display, but told us we'd have to take it down or we could be sued by Coca Cola. They said I'd have to take it down by Wednesday.
"We haven't decided whether we'll be keeping the display up.
"We've only been running the shop for 15 months, and I don't want to do anything to put it at risk."
Lisa, aged 33, of Moorland Road, Burslem, added: "People have come into the shop and told me the display looks absolutely brilliant. One woman came in and picked up a torch, which is part of the display, and asked if she could buy it. I had to tell her I needed it.
"I had no idea I was breaking any rules. I just wanted to support Team GB and the Olympics. This is the only time in my lifetime that we'll have the Olympics in this country, and the only time the torch relay will be coming to Stoke-on-Trent."
Partner Tony is refusing to give in on the issue.
The 43-year-old, of Wetley Rocks, said: "We're not going to take the display down. If they want, we'll take this to court. We haven't done anything wrong."
The Olympic torch relay – which does not go along Leek Road – will arrive in Stoke-on-Trent on Wednesday evening, ahead of a celebration event in Hanley Park. On Thursday morning the relay will pass through Hanley before moving on to Crewe and Congleton.
A Locog spokesman today refused to comment on La Rose Florists' plight.
But she added: "Wherever Locog or trading standards officers see unauthorised use of the word 'Olympics' or registered trademarks, we will take the time to explain to the business owner why they cannot do that.
"Each case will be dealt with on an individual basis, but in general we will pursue a course of education, rather than litigation."




Comments
by kitcrew
Thursday, May 31 2012, 8:45PM
“Who cares,nobody in stoke-on-trent bothered about the olympics anyway.”
by ukjay1
Thursday, May 31 2012, 5:37PM
“If I was the shop owner I'd be tempted to cover my whole shop with rings now!
We have been told many times by the media & various politicians that the Olympic Games will enhance local trade during this period! ?
Why spoil this shops participation & fun?
Madness Rules!
000
00”
by NextDimension
Wednesday, May 30 2012, 11:31AM
“Good comment s & info' 'I_Norris', it seems the only winners in this (pardon the pun) are the mega corporations & their lawyers as usual.
I still make the point that the TS inspectors should target proper law breaking, like counterfeit merchandise, dodgy eateries, scrap metal dealers who take stolen metals....
I could agree with the local TS officers giving a warning to a really big display, linked to a big retail promotion -but only if a merchant was selling counterfeit Olympic goods, or proper goods without due permission.
So that's why I feel sorry for the florist in question.
I am a partner in a retail business, you don't need to tell me about all the stifling rules & regs'.
Partly the reason why I like to post initial spoof posts, is to take the ****' out of officialdom & their petty anti-business edicts & to test readers of the Sentinel websites' sense of humour -often sadly lacking it seems because too many seem to take the spoof comments literally !.”
by I_Norris
Wednesday, May 30 2012, 7:18AM
“NextDimension: sorry wasn't replying to yourself just a general comment, I was surprised to discover the Olympics have their OWN Legislation Act, the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006.
http://tinyurl.com/87edjuv
I had imagined Trading Standard were using everyday trademark law, so though would share for comment education.
BTW would not wish to encourage Lisa's La Rose Florists shop to fight due to risks and to bow down to the All mighty corporations”
by NextDimension
Wednesday, May 30 2012, 12:25AM
“My comments were meant as spoof, Micky take of overbearing officialdom !
I regret to inform 'I_Norris' that he is, as Alan Sugar says..fired !, for not spotting my parodying.
But this contributed does have a point with regards the letter of the law, but I still think the local
Trading Standards bods who called at the florist, have too much spare time to harras traders who have a job just to keep going some weeks with how things are now !
The TS should be calling at scrap metal merchants a lot more, looking for dodgy metal items.”
by I_Norris
Tuesday, May 29 2012, 11:17PM
“The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Advertising and Trading) (England) Regulations 2011
Exception for demonstrations, &c 7.—(1) Regulation 6 does not apply to advertising activity intended to—
(a) demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person or body of persons,
(b) publicise a belief, cause or campaign, or
(c) mark or commemorate an event.
(2) But this exception does not apply to advertising activity that promotes or advertises—
(a) a good or service, or
(b) a person or body (excluding a not-for-profit body) that provides a good or service..
Turn it upside down in protest maybe exempt?
Why does torch have to leave during rush hour?”
by NextDimension
Tuesday, May 29 2012, 10:25PM
“Seems it's left to me to be the voice of reason here...the Trading Standards civil enforcement officers were right to warn the said trader to remove the offending display.
I mean, if every Tom Dick & Harriet were to be allowed to infringe copyright in this way...well I can't begin to imagime the consequences.
If I were to plant flowers in my excellent garden, that were obviously corporate or other copyright protected symbols, I would expect a visit by yours truly to tell me to uproot the McDonalds symbol etc'.
The Olympics have not been 'the people's games' for a while now, and if it wasn't for the great work the corporations do to maintain the games in it's current form-then to quote a proletariat saying 'it would be knackerd' ?.
I think the fines & prosecutions for afore mentioned transgressions should be harsh, to teach people to abide by the copyright rules -after all..,the law is the law, & justice must seen to be done.
The picture above might show an innocent flower display, don't you believe it ! that flower display must of known it was in the wrong, it does look a bit guilty?.”
by gscook242
Tuesday, May 29 2012, 4:54PM
“Corporations own the world, they own you and me, they own the right to use interconnecting circles as a symbol. Who gave them that right? Is the Potteries going to benefit from the "londonlympics" Nah. Boycott the whole thing. I stopped drinking Coke years ago it messes your body up boycott Coke. Someone should make a drink in competition and call it Stoka Cola :)
Maybe instead of spending the £24bn of taxpayers money on the Olympics (including new infrastructure for London) they could have used some of the money to help regenerate Stoke-on-Trent.”
by I_Norris
Tuesday, May 29 2012, 2:58PM
“Finkcat its a LOGOC approved flowerbed”
by finkcat
Tuesday, May 29 2012, 9:18AM
“Are they making the Council get rid of the olympic symbol they have carved into the grass on the embankment next to the Potteries Way?”