The end
of Glee?
Early conciliation:
a misnomer?
Early conciliation (EC) is a procedure
carried out by ACAS – an independent
and impartial organisation that does
not side with either party involved
in an employment dispute. Its aim
is to help parties involved reach
suitable resolutions.
ACAS, the Advisory, Conciliation and
Arbitration Service, is a Crown nondepartmental public body of the UK
government. Its purpose is to improve
organisations and working life. But is
early conciliation a misnomer?
Since 6th May 2014, early conciliation
has become compulsory prior to lodging
a claim in the employment tribunal. The
aim is to encourage parties to have the
chance to settle claims through ACAS to
avoid employment tribunal proceedings.
A battle is being fought over the use
of the name `the Glee Club’, which
has been registered as a trademark.
The High Court have recently made
their decision over the use of the
phrase and found against the
broadcasting powerhouse Twentieth
Century Fox, meaning a rename and
rebrand of the TV show in the UK.
Comic Enterprises run successful
comedy venues in the north of England
under the name Glee Club. They have
registered a trademark for th at name
(‘the Glee Club’) in the UK. Twentieth
Century Fox broadcast a popular
American musical TV show called
Glee. Comic Enterprises objected to
Twentieth Century Fox’s use of the word
Glee, asserting that consumers were
confused by the two names. Customers
were attending their comedy shows but
expecting a musical and dancing show,
similar to the TV show.
Because Comic Enterprises had
protected their name by registering it as
a trademark, they were able to enforce
their intellectual property rights over
the use of that name. They were able to
36
take action through the courts to try to
stop Twentieth Century Fox from using
the same name in the UK and causing
confusion to their customers.
The High Court’s recent decision found
in favour of Comic Enterprises, stating
that Twentieth Century Fox had infringed
Comic Enterprises’ trademark rights to
the words ‘the Glee Club’. They found
that there was a “likelihood of confusion”
and that Comic Enterprises had “suffered
detriment” as a result.
Twentieth Century Fox plans to appeal
to the Court of Appeal, so the battle
will continue in that court. If they are
unsuccessful, they will have to change
the name of their TV show in the UK,
which means rebranding and readvertising. This may be costly and could
affect the ratings and value of the show
in this country. They have also been
ordered to pay an interim sum to Comic
Enterprises of £100,000.
The use of a name or phrase can be
a crucial part of your business’ brand,
because it is instantly recognisable and
known to the public. It represents your
product or services and the reputation
behind it so it is therefore important to
consider intellectual property rights in
any business or new enterprise, including
possible trademarks.
You could be able to trademark your
company’s name, or that of your
particular product or service. You will then
have a right over the use of that name
and you will be able to take action to
protect the use of that name, as Comic
Enterprises did.
You should also be careful to check
whether your product or company name
is already trademarked in any country
in which you wish to market, to ensure
that you are not infringing anyone else’s
trademark and risking action being
taken against you. It can be a costly
and damaging exercise to change your
product’s name and it could be damaging
to the commercial value.
If you want to find out more information,
please give the Media and Creative
Industries Team a call.
By Miranda Jenkins
This means claimants have to file an EC
form with ACAS before lodging a claim.
A claimant should submit an EC form
within the limitation period relating to
that particular type of claim. The date
of filing the form is Day A. Time then
pauses while ACAS seeks to encourage
settlement. If settlement is unsuccessful
ACAS will present a certificate on Day
B, which will enable the claimant to
proceed with lodging a claim having the
required number.
While it has been given the title early
conciliation, I question whether this is a
misnomer as arguably it is anything but
early. The reality is that the regulations are
designed so that both parties can effectively
buy time by stopping the clock. Claimants
will always have at least a month at the end
of the conciliation period (Day B) to lodge a
claim, providing the EC form is filed before
the expiry of the original time limit. There
are however, two other ways in which the
limitation period can be extended.
First, the clock can pause from the
day after Day A (the date of filing the
EC form) to Day B (end of conciliation
period). The time limit is extended by the
number of days paused. Additionally,
if this extension does not leave the
claimant with a full month from Day B,
time will be extended to the end of the
conciliation period (Day B) plus a month.
Second, where the original time limit
expires during the period starting with
Day A and finishing one month after Day
B, the new time limit expires at the end of
the period instead. The implication of this
is that the claimant can file the EC form
on the date their time limit expires. If they
do so, it is worth noting that they will not
benefit from the clock pausing but they
will still receive the extra month.
Some claimants may wish to buy as much
time as possible but should be mindful of
leaving it too late in the day to submit their
EC form because if it were lost, they will
have to resend it as the procedure cannot
be completed without it.
We can predict potential problems
regarding the limitation period as the
dates will therefore need to be carefully
calculated. Unrepresented claimants
in particular may well get them wrong
and it will then be up to the employment
tribunal to decide whether the limitation
period should be extended or not.
Is early conciliation really being
encouraged? Some employers may well
play the waiting game until time runs out.
Given the substantial drop in employment
tribunal claims, employers may assume
that the claimant won’t proceed with
lodging the claim. The true impact of early
conciliation will remain to be seen but in
my view the conciliation might not actually
be as early as originally intended.
By Sarah Carr-Locke
37