Manchester City face suit from clothing label for bizarre reason
In recent years, Manchester City have seen nothing short of miraculous success. They received trophy after trophy, reaching the pinnacle with last year’s remarkable treble-winning campaign.
While this was going on, Erling Haaland set several records in his first year with the team. They have been ruling England and Europe thanks to their regularly excellent performances.
But off the field, it’s been an entirely different tale. A total of 115 allegations of Financial Fair Play (FFP) violations have landed the club in hot water. If proven guilty at an August trial, the Sky Blues might face a substantial penalty.
Be that as it may, the club’s legal woes have only become worse since worldwide apparel has sued them.
Why are City being sued?
Superdry, a clothing company, has filed a trademark infringement suit against Manchester City. They are also reportedly pursuing a high court order to prohibit additional legal action, as per Daily Mail.
The apparel label was critical of the new training gear used by City. The reason being, they saw an ad for Asahi’s non-alcoholic “Super Dry 0.0%,” their flagship drink. And believed it looked quite similar to their designs.
This past July, the club announced that Asahi Super “Dry” beer will be the official partner of the team’s training uniform. Thus, during training sessions, City players therefore display the drink’s branding.
The fashion label Superdry, however, filed an “injunction to restrain” City last month over the use of the term.
They claim that “the differences between Super ‘Dry’ and Superdry are so insignificant that they may go unnoticed by the average consumer.” Additionally, they are requesting an unspecified sum for expenses.
Pep Guardiola’s squad has been wearing different training gear this week. Since 2022, the Premier League winners have collaborated with Asahi.
However, after viewing pictures of the training uniforms, Superdry decided to bring a lawsuit towards the end of 2023.
What did Superdry say?
A spokesperson for Superdry, Philip Roberts, issued a warning about an impending demand for the “destruction or modification upon oath of all goods and other items… [which] would constitute a breach of the injunctions.”
In his statement to The Telegraph, he explained that the sponsored kit closely resembles each of the chosen products. It shares identical or similar features with the trademark registered under Superdry Registrations.
This similarity exists specifically in connection to goods that are either identical or similar to those covered by the Superdry Registrations, creating circumstances that could potentially cause confusion among the public.
“The defendant [City] is hereby called upon to confirm whether it is using or intending to use the sign(s) complained of in relation to any Class 25 goods beyond the sponsored kit, in order that the selected goods relied upon can be expanded to the extent necessary without undue case management disruption.
“The Defendant threatens and intends to perpetuate (alternatively, to commence) the acts complained of hereinabove. By reason of the aforesaid acts the claimants have suffered damage and/or will suffer damage in the future unless restrained by this honourable court.”
“Accordingly, the Claimants will seek damages in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, as retained law, to include inter alia any unfair profits made by the infringer by reason of the infringement.”
Photo credit: IMAGO / News Images