- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Close pass video (Chapona Bicyclette/YouTube)Cyclist threatened with legal action for posting video of close pass by driver in company-branded van
When one London-based cyclist caught a close pass on camera and sent the footage to the company whose branding was covering the driver responsible's vehicle, he expected an apology and perhaps "some form of disciplinary action". Instead, he was threatened with legal action for using the company's trademark without permission.
The road.cc reader who told us about the incident initially uploaded the video to their YouTube channel (Chapona Bicyclette) and forwarded a copy to Cornices Centre, the company whose van driver close passed him on Chelsea Embankment in November.
But, rather than an apology and "some form of disciplinary action against their driver", the road.cc reader instead received a lengthy email from a company director claiming that "unauthorised use" of their 'CORNICES CENTRE®' trademark was "confusing our customers, negatively impacting our brand reputation, and potentially harming our sales and the exclusivity of our trademark", something the company wanted addressed with prompt removal of its name from the "video content and descriptions".
If unaddressed or refused, the email seen by road.cc continued, the company said it would be "prepared to take legal action if necessary" and would "seek legal redress and claim any related expenses, including lost sales".
> Here's what to do if you capture a near miss, close pass or collision on camera while cycling
It also argued company advertisement on vehicles does "not imply our responsibility for incidents involving those mediums" and accused the road.cc reader of damaging their "reputation by misleading the public in your videos by focusing on our company rather than the drivers featured".
"The company could have quite easily apologised and confirmed some form of disciplinary action against their driver," the road.cc reader explained. "But instead decided to threaten me with legal action for using their trademark without permission.
"This gives me the impression that they didn't think their driver did anything wrong. Despite the video showing the van passing me within easy reach. Whilst they were concerned about brand damage of a YouTube video with 400 views at the time, it's now had 40,000 views in the past 24 hours, since word of the 'trademark infringement' got out. One might allege this has backfired.
"I'm considering legal action against Cornices Centre now, with proceeds going to a cycling charity. I don't want their money, but I would like an apology, both for the diabolical driving and their unfounded legal threats.
"I've also spoken to other regular YouTubers about this, where they've also been threatened with legal action from various brand owners. Many took down their videos entirely, thinking they were in the wrong, and they were genuinely fearful of these unfounded legal threats."
road.cc contacted Cornices Centre for comment but did not receive a reply.
The footage and subsequent email from the company has also been the subject of a video by barrister Daniel ShenSmith on his BlackBeltBarrister YouTube channel, in which he suggests, while stressing the video is not legal advice and for educational purposes only, that "infringing use is when you are using someone else's trademark to market goods or services" and highlights Section 10 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 which defines infringement.
"The point is, it must be used in the course of business to market goods or services," BlackBeltBarrister continued. "Unless Chapona Bicyclette is somehow marketing goods or services using this company's name, then he is not going to be infringing the trademark by the definition in the Trade Marks Act."
The barrister also points out to his viewers, 42,000 of whom have watched the video since its upload on 1 January, that the email from the Cornices Centre director explains that "the company is the owner of a registered trademark" and "whilst they are quite correct to say that the YouTube video does incorporate the trademark in video titles and descriptions, they say it is improperly used, which is not really the case because he's not, in so far as I can see, marketing any goods or services".
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- Rome73 6 sec ago
It can't just be because of expensive bikes can it? Couldn't the same argument be applied to Bugatti, Pagani, Lamborghini? There is a market for...
- David9694 8 hours 48 min ago
Trentham Estate shopper 'stuck on car park for three hours' demands action...
- Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells 12 hours 29 min ago
"One cyclist said while trying to avoid this puddle he was nearly knocked off his bike."...
- mattw 15 hours 27 min ago
Lisa Townsend very much views her police role through a political lens....
- Bigtwin 16 hours 23 min ago
Museum thread, but hey. I had one of these, before I saw this review. And it's spot on. The review, not the bike. I put up with it for a couple...
- mattw 17 hours 23 sec ago
Signed and promoted in a couple of my networks.
- mattw 17 hours 9 min ago
Trying to work out why I need a £390 3d printed titanium bottle cage....
- wtjs 19 hours 27 min ago
Good point! Over 18 months later, and I haven't seen (could have missed it!) a long term review of this groupset
- unami 19 hours 41 min ago
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/exclusive/365458/driver-whose-towbar-voide......
- Miller 22 hours 21 min ago
Pogi and a few of the others are on the divisive new Colnago aero bike in those Insta photos.
Add new comment
99 comments
have never understood why drivers of liveried vans drive like that, youre literally advertising your company in huge lettering on the side of your van encouraging people to notice who you are.
and potential customers, as that is what we all are, are going to react negatively towards you driving like an idiot, even if we arent the one most directly impacted, so why do they drive like that ?
Google reviews slamming the company's "run over bikers "policy?
Here's hoping the bully director gets his/her comeuppance.
Hmmm...
(with thanks to Baroudeur below).
By definition the purpose of a trademark of to identify a business or goods/services.
Clearly it's use in the video is too identify the company... Literally the entire purpose that trademarks are protected for...
You, uh, genuinely think that your interpretation of the law here is more accurate than the barrister's ...?
On your interpretation, the company could sue anyone who mentions their name to refer to them (i.e. identifying the company) ... which would be plainly bonkers.
You've misinterpreted what qwerty360 said. The "purpose" of trademarks in general is to allow a business to be associated with a specific brand i.e. everyone can refer to the trademark and people will know which business they are referring to e.g Apple Computers. Infringement of a trademark isn't just using the trademark - it's using (i.e. providing goods or services) that trademark to refer to a different business/product than the owner of the trademark and generally the trademark owner will need to defend their ownership of the trademark (e.g. suing the infringer) in order to keep it.
e.g. if Dyson started using "hoover" in their adverts, then they should expect to get a warning letter from Hoover, but if they don't and are allowed to continue using it, then "Hoover" could lose their trademark and everyone could use it as a generic term to sell vaccuum cleaners. In the meantime, many people use it as a generic term in daily use, but can't use it to provide goods or services - presumably a house cleaning service can't advertise that they "hoover" a house if they're using a different brand.
As BBB details, it's only trading or providing services under someone else's trademark that is infringement.
No, I think you missed the point Qwerty360 is making, namely that the company is 'fighting' super hard to protect its trademark, when ironically in this situation, their trademark is actually working beautifully to identify their company... they are just not liking what that means for their reputation
There were a few comments about how the cyclist should have moved back left and was asking for trouble or looking for clicks.
I did check this again and he just held a line to where it narrowed which wasn't very far ahead, so what he did seemed reasonable.
The 20 sign does light up as the van approaches it and the cyclist is only a few seconds behind.
Also, as BBB pointed out, the entry or start to the (badly labelled) cycle lane was after a white diagonal lined box - which is a notice for all road users not to be entered unles safe and necessary, so the cyclist took up an appropriate position and stayed there.
I would also point out that the lane dividing line is extremely thin from the camera angle, so it makes the very short lane look line a parking space/ loading bay. And many parking spaces that encroach the road space will use the exact same diagonal lined box to direct and warn traffic.
WTF is that lane thingy? Whilst the Van drive obviously punishment passed for the cyclist not using, Im 99% sure its not a cycle lane.
I am only going off what was said by BBB in his reaction video. I am about 120 miles away and have never seen this stretch of road. Google Maps street view from Oct 2022 shows construction barriers over the section of infrastructure so it is not easy to identify. These barriers can bee seen in all previous street view dates from 2019 onwards.
The only thing is that the line is solid - parking/loading bays, taxi ranks etc are all broken lines so they are not that type of infra, the only times a solid white line is used to the left of a lane is for either a permanent cycle or bus lane (there are no bus lane signs, and the line is always considerably wider), or to determine the boundary line of the road.
On further inspection, further up the road there is still significant construction areas where the road is significantly narrower than originally built. They are probably more likely defining the road boundary as the line position instead of the pavement.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4848791,-0.1551337,3a,75y,65.44h,72.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6gULI3hlswmnlBB_VstMKQ!2e0!5s20221001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
It really shouldn't matter though. Riding close to or far away from the kerb doesn't change what a driver behind you should be doing. It is recommended to ride further out to discourage overtaking when there isn't room, but no drivers should be overtaking just because they can squeeze through.
A close overtake when a cyclist is to the far left is 100% the fault of the driver.
That wasn't the point of my post. I was considering the criticisms directed at the cyclist.
I was thinking the other day about how utterly redundant the term "Kafkaesque" has become. A world that is senseless, disorienting, and characterized by menacing complexity isn't remakable anymore. It just describes an ordinary Wednesday.
Not sure if its been mentioned yet...
But given most cyclists with an open road (yes, even in central London) can easily push or exceed 20mph... was the driver speeding?
At 30 seconds in you can see a '20 mph slow down' LED sign flashing, so somebody triggered it! Most likely the van. I estimated their speed to be around 24mph.
From the end of Embankment Gardens to the traffic lights is (Google Maps measurement) 119m and the rider covers it in 13 seconds, just about 9m/s or pretty much dead on 20mph, and includes some slowing as the driver overtakes, so the driver would definitely be exceeding the speed limit. No surprise, it's a nice straight run off the bridge footing if you're lucky with the lights and there's usually a tail wind so I often ride down there at 23-25mph with a steady stream of cars overtaking me. Very rare to see drivers adhering to the 20 limit down there except through the speed camera just before Albert Bridge.
I saw this on FB first, my comment there was along the lines of "there's no such thing as bad publicity". I think we should have a right old pile on, especially aimed at the Director concerned. What a complete and utter piece of shit.
(Repeating what I said on the Live blog about this)
I'd like to see the cyclist get an injunction against them just so that the business will pick up the thousands of pounds of legal fees. This kind of weaponised stupidity needs to be punished.
Also, am I the only one who keeps reading "Chapona" as some kind of spanish name with a soft "ch"? (It appears that it's a woman's morning dress)
Sorry, I'm being pedantic about lanuage misunderstandings here.
By "them" presumably You mean the business, rather than the cyclist...?
Yes, the cyclist should get an injunction against the business to stop them making unjustified threats of legal action.
And BBB points out that making unfounded threats can lead to being counter sued under section 21C of the trade mark act.
What's bizarre is BBB has 372000 subscribers whereas Chapona Bicyclette has 417 !!
How to trash your own reputation by ensuring as wide an audience as possible !
Make that 418. I have subscribed in support of Chap. That video has definitely grew his presence after BBB's involvement.
I know that stretch well. Not only was the overtake unsafe, it was also completely pointless. Anyone who drives or cycles along there from time to time would know that the driver would get held up behind a queue of vehicles at the next set of lights and that the cyclsit would filter to the front. It highlights to me why all drivers, and I mean all drivers, should have to undertake compulsory cycle training.
There are many times when I'll happily trundle along behind a cyclist at 15mph in a 20mph zone when I'm in my car these days as I know I'll come behind a crocodile of other cars at the next set of lights. I use the South Circular here in South London regularly for example and if you're driving along it, there's really no need to overtake a cyclist.
Oh, and the legal claim by the firm is stupid and self-defeating.
Have they removed the 'no overtaking cyclists' signs now?
Good spot! You must mean this sign (circled) in the video. It's easier to read what it says in Google Maps. I guess it still says the same today.
They are still there, it's the lead-in to the "Super Sewer" works (more properly known as the Thames Tideway Tunnel) which takes out virtually all of the westbound carriageway. Last time I looked they were scheduled to be completed in 2025.
I thought they had been but as the other post shows, they hadn't.
Pages