|
“Bach” and “Bach
Flower Remedies” are public, generic terms
|
On May
22, 1998, The High Court of England, made the following ruling in
response to a suit brought by Healing Herbs, Ltd., against Bach Flower
Remedies, Ltd, a subsidiary of the A. Nelson Company:
1. Both the ‘Bach Flower Remedies’
trade marks should be removed from the register;
2. Both the ‘BACH’ registered trade marks should be removed
from the register;
3. Both the ‘BACH’ trade marks in the signature form can
remain on the register, but only provided the respondent is prepared
to agree to a disclaimer in relation to the word ‘Bach’
itself;
4. Both the roundel device trade marks may remain on the register,
provided the respondent agrees to the disclaimers extending to the
word ‘Bach’ as well as to the words ‘Flower Remedies’.
The case involved an extensive historical review of the development
of the Bach Flower Remedies. In his concluding comments, Mr. Justice
Neuberger wrote for the High Court of England:
“I accept the submission of Mr. Hobbs, on behalf of the applicant,
that the attitude of the individuals running the Bach Centre over
the past fifteen years or so represents a pretty radical departure
from the philosophy of Dr. Bach and, indeed, the philosophy embraced
by his immediate successors, Nora Weeks and Victor Bullen. It seems
to me that their attitude was to make the Remedies available as widely
as possible. While I do not think that they would have been attracted
to the idea of people “cashing in” on the Remedies, in the
sense of making large profits out of manufacturing and selling them,
they were certainly not concerned with ensuring that the Bach Centre
was seen as the main, let alone the exclusive, source of either the
manufacture or the sale of the Remedies, or that it should try and
prevent other organisations from using the name “Bach”.”
The 119-page court ruling was the result of an eight-day trial, after
a legal suit initiated by Julian Barnard of Healing Herbs, Ltd. Barnard
explained, “We did not go into this with any intent to damage
the business of the Nelsons Group. We simply wanted to be able to
provide those interested in buying and using the Flower Remedies with
a choice, and the freedom to describe them as what they are.”
The suit was brought by Healing Herbs after a number of educational
institutions in England and around the world were threatened with
law suits for offering classes on the “Bach Flower Remedies”
without permission of the Bach Centre. Legal threats were also made
directly to the Healing Herbs company.
The High Court agreed with the contention that “‘Bach Flower
Remedies’ is a generic term, meaning ‘flower remedies prepared
in accordance with the teachings of Dr Bach’ and… [since
they] can be prepared by anybody; they cannot, in principle, constitute
a badge of origin, that is, an expression indicating a particular
source of the remedies.”
The Nelson Company appealed the ruling. On October 21, 1999, the three
Justices of the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court of Judicature
upheld the original ruling.
This ruling was then appealed to the British House of Lords, the highest
court of appeal in the UK and the European Court of Justice. Both
appeals were rejected as of July 4, 2000.
In a press release, Julian Barnard commented,
“It is clear now that at last anyone can produce the remedies,
write, teach and work with them, as Dr. Bach desired. It’s the
end of a marathon David-and-Goliath battle and we hope that everyone
will now be free from the constant bully-boy threats of litigation.”
For full texts of the decisions, read here.
