A legal battle between the owners of the iconic Hotel Cipriani in Venice and the family that opened it over use of the Cipriani name by their Mayfair restaurant has returned to court.
In 2008, the high court ruled that because of the “confusion” created by the name of the Cipriani restaurant, the Cipriani family must stop using it. That ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2010.
The family – which opened the hotel in Venice in 1959 before later selling it – renamed their Mayfair restaurant C London, and then, in 2011, opened a second restaurant named Downtown Mayfair.
However, hotel owners Hotel Cipriani SRL claim that, in breach of the court order, they continue to use the Cipriani name in relation to the restaurants.
Opening the case today, Benet Brandreth, for Hotel Cipriani, said that the dispute was a “long and sorry saga”, which was “characterised by persistent and repeated attempts by the defendants to ignore or defy the orders of the English Courts”.
He continued: “The Defendant persists in trying to use ‘Cipriani’ in relation to its UK restaurants; only stopping when caught by the claimant.”
He said that the hotel owners now seek a declaration that the family’s use of the phrase “by G Cipriani” as part of the branding of its two London restaurants – on windows, menus, websites and in promotional emails – is a breach of the Order.
However, Emma Himsworth QC argued on behalf of the family that the net effect of their use of clear branding for the restaurants with the addition of “by G Cipriani” was “not to lead to confusion” with the famous hotel, but to lead customers to the conclusion that the restaurants are managed by an individual named G Cipriani.
She argued that members of the public are increasingly aware that Cipriani is a surname, citing England rugby international Danny Cipriani as an example.
Arnold J has reserved his decision on the latest application.
In December 2008, he found that companies controlled by the Cipriani family and Giuseppe Cipriani personally were all liable for trade mark infringement and passing off in respect of the “Cipriani” mark.
Dismissing the family’s appeal against that ruling in 2010, Lloyd LJ said that the hotel “does not carry on any business at premises in the UK, but the business that it does carry on in Venice has an international reputation” and that the trial judge has been right to conclude that the claim should succeed.
Chancery (Arnold J) 17 January 2013
Benet Brandreth (instructed by Walker Morris) for the claimants
Emma Himsworth QC (instructed by Herbert Smith) for the defendants
A legal battle between the owners of the iconic Hotel Cipriani in Venice and the family that opened it over use of the Cipriani name by their Mayfair restaurant has returned to court. In 2008, the high court ruled that because of the “confusion” created by the name of the Cipriani restaurant, the Cipriani family must stop using it. That ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2010. The family – which opened the hotel in Venice in 1959 before later selling it – renamed their Mayfair restaurant C London, and then, in 2011, opened a second restaurant named Downtown Mayfair. However, hotel owners Hotel Cipriani SRL claim that, in breach of the court order, they continue to use the Cipriani name in relation to the restaurants. Opening the case today, Benet Brandreth, for Hotel Cipriani, said that the dispute was a “long and sorry saga”, which was “characterised by persistent and repeated attempts by the defendants to ignore or defy the orders of the English Courts”. He continued: “The Defendant persists in trying to use ‘Cipriani’ in relation to its UK restaurants; only stopping when caught by the claimant.” He said that the hotel owners now seek a declaration that the family’s use of the phrase “by G Cipriani” as part of the branding of its two London restaurants – on windows, menus, websites and in promotional emails – is a breach of the Order. However, Emma Himsworth QC argued on behalf of the family that the net effect of their use of clear branding for the restaurants with the addition of “by G Cipriani” was “not to lead to confusion” with the famous hotel, but to lead customers to the conclusion that the restaurants are managed by an individual named G Cipriani. She argued that members of the public are increasingly aware that Cipriani is a surname, citing England rugby international Danny Cipriani as an example. Arnold J has reserved his decision on the latest application. In December 2008, he found that companies controlled by the Cipriani family and Giuseppe Cipriani personally were all liable for trade mark infringement and passing off in respect of the “Cipriani” mark. Dismissing the family’s appeal against that ruling in 2010, Lloyd LJ said that the hotel “does not carry on any business at premises in the UK, but the business that it does carry on in Venice has an international reputation” and that the trial judge has been right to conclude that the claim should succeed. Chancery (Arnold J) 17 January 2013Benet Brandreth (instructed by Walker Morris) for the claimantsEmma Himsworth QC (instructed by Herbert Smith) for the defendants
