Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pysxul 2292 days ago
He did it because Hugo boss is suing tons of small business with a name including "BOSS" in order to hurt them financially.
2 comments

I think GP means that it's a (probably registered) trademark, which is distinct from 'copyright'.
And, at the very least, it means that Hugo can't get a passport using his new name:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

It should also be pointed out that the Deed Poll pictured isn't an official document in any meaningful sense. In the UK, you pretty much change your name by starting to use a new name and telling all the official bodies that you have done so - and asking for new paperwork in that name (including passports etc).

These Deed Poll forms are produced by any number of paralegal-esque companies and are useful to include when writing to your bank/utility conpany, but that's about it.

There does appear to be a central process for doing it in Scotland:

https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/registration/recording-change-...

Edit: Being married to Scots law lawyer I feel obliged to point these things out any time I see a mention of a "UK" legal system... ;-)

As an English person, I would like to both apologise and thank you for pointing out the difference and challenging my default assumption.
To be precise: You will need a Deed Poll, which is a piece of paper with certain words on it, and it needs to be signed and witnessed, but you can make one yourself and you dont need an official body or lawyer to do it.
Correct - and here are the certain words. https://www.gov.uk/change-name-deed-poll/make-an-adult-deed-...

“I [old name] of [your address] have given up my name [old name] and have adopted for all purposes the name [new name].

“Signed as a deed on [date] as [old name] and [new name] in the presence of [witness 1 name] of [witness 1 address], and [witness 2 name] of [witness 2 address].

“[your new signature], [your old signature]

“[witness 1 signature], [witness 2 signature]”

That's a strange rule! It's the definite article in "the owner of that trademark" that confuses me. The same word could be a registered trademark in each of about 45 classes, with a different owner for each mark.

Perhaps the next logical step for this comedian is to find a class in which Hugo Boss is not registered and register his own trademark in that class. Then he can give himself permission to use his own name. Or something. I actually have no idea how the rule in the the linked document would be applied in practice. Perhaps in practice they don't care about trademarks if the name is an ordinary name, like "John Smith", for example. Which is almost certainly also a trademark ... I've just checked (https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmtext): JOHN SMITH matches a bunch of different trademarks, and if you include JOHN SMITH'S then there are even more of them.

Good point, though it does make me wonder what happens if your name (say, from birth, or even if not) predates the trademark. Does trademark registration similarly check against registered births? And deaths (to allow them again, if no new births)?
I thought I read somewhere that they were suing charities (?), which if true leaves me feeling it’s not so much of a bad thing that he’s doing.