In an ongoing and complex trademark dispute, salon owner Rebecca Dowdeswell is gearing up for a pivotal hearing with the global cosmetics giant L’Oréal. The legal battle began when L’Oréal opposed Dowdeswell’s effort to renew the trademark for her Leicester-based business, nkd, back in 2022. The French beauty firm asserts that their existing trademark on products branded as “Naked” would lead to consumer confusion between the two brands, claiming that the similarity in names could mislead consumers.
Dowdeswell, who has been a salon owner since 2009, finds herself in a “much stronger position” after the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) scheduled a hearing for later this year, specifically on November 5. The 49-year-old entrepreneur expressed optimism about the upcoming legal proceedings, stating her determination to “fight again” and tackle the challenges presented by the multinational corporation. She stated how incredibly vital this matter is, not just for her business, but for the intellectual property rights of smaller firms against larger entities.
The dispute escalated when Dowdeswell accidentally let her trademark expire in 2019, missing a renewal window due to the tumultuous circumstances surrounding the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The interruption caused by the global crisis created chaotic conditions across all industries, particularly affecting businesses like beauty salons. Reflecting on this mistake, she admitted feeling deeply that it was a significant error. When she attempted to re-register the trademark, L’Oréal’s opposition forced her into a position of defending her brand from the claims of the much larger corporation.
In her defense claims, Dowdeswell argued that there has never been “any evidence of consumer confusion” in her 15 years of operation. She insisted that throughout her tenure, no customer ever inquired about a connection between her nkd brand and L’Oréal’s Naked products, particularly the Urban Decay make-up brand, which features an extensive collection of eyeshadow palettes labeled as Naked. Dowdeswell firmly believes that her branding is distinct enough that the two cannot be conflated by consumers.
Despite the protracted nature of the legal struggle, which has lasted over three years and involved considerable financial expenditure of over £30,000, Dowdeswell has experienced a brief respite from the stress of the dispute while waiting for the hearing. However, this did not diminish the toll that the extended legal skirmish took on her personally and within her family setting, especially as a mother of two young children. “In hindsight, I realized how much of a toll it took on me last year,” she reflected, acknowledging the strain that the ongoing legal battle has placed on her familial and business life.
In response to Dowdeswell’s assertions, a spokesperson for L’Oréal has expressed a commitment to resolving the misunderstanding amicably, highlighting an offer made to support her business aspirations while honoring their established trademark rights. The IPO confirmed that a decision regarding the hearing outcome would typically be delivered approximately nine months after the hearing date.
Ultimately, Ms. Dowdeswell remains resolute in her fight against L’Oréal’s objections. With an expression of defiance, she emphasized her unwillingness to surrender. “I think L’Oreal thinks I’m just going to go away—and I’m not,” she stated emphatically. As she prepares for the crucial hearing, Dowdeswell stands as a symbol of resilience for small business owners vying to uphold their rights in the face of corporate giants.
