The ‘Wagatha Christie’ trial hit the headlines in 2022 after Rebekah Vardy unsuccessfully sued Coleen Rooney for libel following accusations that Vardy was leaking posts from Rooney’s private Instagram account to the press. The trial attracted mass media attention and subsequently a stage play, TV series and documentary were created. Now, in a turn of events, a trade mark registration has been granted for the mark ‘WAGATHA CHRISTIE’. The registration is owned by a company reported to be acting on behalf of Rebekah Vardy, who could ironically now benefit from the courtroom saga.
What is the ‘Wagatha Christie’ case?
The dispute arose in 2019 when Coleen Rooney, wife of footballer Wayne Rooney, grew suspicious as to how her private Instagram posts were appearing in the press. To get to the bottom of it, Rooney set up a sting operation by posting fake stories on her Instagram account and restricting access to the stories to just one ‘suspect’, Rebekah Vardy (wife of footballer Jamie Vardy). When the fake stories started to appear in the British newspapers, Rooney concluded that Vardy was leaking the stories and declared on Twitter: “It’s……Rebekah Vardy’s account”. This led writer, producer and comedian, Dan Atkinson, to coin the phrase ‘Wagatha Christie’, which widely became the tag synonymous with the trial.
Following the allegation, Vardy sued Rooney for libel, denying the accusations over the leaks and claiming that she had suffered serious harm to her reputation. On 29 July 2022, the court dismissed Vardy’s claim and ruled in Rooney’s favour.
Trade Mark Registration
On 22 August 2022, less than a month after the conclusion of the court case, a trade mark application for ‘WAGATHA CHRISTIE’ was filed in the name of London Entertainment Inc Ltd, a company reportedly acting on behalf of Vardy. The application covers a wide range of goods and services including cosmetics, household goods, jewellery, alcoholic beverages and TV/entertainment-related services. The application originally requested protection for linen and clothing, but these products attracted opposition by Welspun UK Limited, owners of the towel and bedding brand Christy.
The mark was granted registered status on 14 April 2023, which now means that unauthorised third-party use of the name WAGATHA CHRISTIE could be found to be infringing the registration.
The motivation behind the registration is not entirely clear, but commercial exploitation of the mark may see further legal action.
Possible legal action
It is surprising that Agatha Christie Limited, the owner of the AGATHA CHRISTIE trade marks, has not challenged the WAGATHA CHRISTIE registration. The mark derives from a combination of the acronym WAG, which refers to “wives and girlfriends” of famous footballers, and the name of the famous crime novelist, Agatha Christie. If Vardy does commercially exploit the WAGATHA CHRISTIE trade mark, it will be interesting to see whether Agatha Christie Limited claims that the registration free-rides on the coattails of Agatha Christie’s renowned reputation.
In addition, in a recent article Dan Atkinson has questioned whether he will take legal action against the registration by way of copyright infringement. To claim that such infringement has taken place, Atkinson must first prove that he is the owner of the copyright and that the work is unique or substantial enough to be awarded copyright protection. On the face of it, ‘Wagatha Christie’ does not seem unique or substantial enough for Atkinson to have copyright in the short phrase. So it remains to be seen whether Atkinson will in fact ‘lawyer up’ (in his words) and take legal action.
Finally, the registration may be challenged on the ground of bad faith. The term ‘bad faith’ has been summarised by case law as “dishonesty” and “dealings which fall short of the standard of acceptable commercial behaviour”. So it is entirely possible that we could see bad faith challenges against the registration based on:
- The unduly wide scope of the goods and services covered by the registration; and
- Whether there is an actual intention to use the mark in relation to the vast array of goods and services (as required under UK trade mark law); or
- If the mark was merely registered as a tool to prevent third parties from using the name WAGATHA CHRISTIE.
Comment
It remains to be seen why WAGATHA CHRISTIE was registered in the first place. On one hand, the name may have been registered to prevent others from using the phrase that was created at Vardy’s expense. On the other hand, this could be a way for Vardy to profit from the registration following the large public interest in the trial and subsequent commercialisation. Either way, the case highlights the value of a registered trade mark in providing commercial leverage.
The jury is still out on whether the ‘Curtain’ is set to fall on the Vardy v Rooney case, as the WAGATHA CHRISTIE trade mark registration may take this saga into its second leg!
