header-logo header-logo

28 June 2020
Issue: 7893 / Categories: Legal News , Patents
printer mail-detail

Minnow out-swims big fish in hair care war

The Supreme Court has rejected French cosmetics giant L’Oréal’s application to appeal a patent infringement case brought by Californian start-up Olaplex

L’Oréal must therefore stop selling its Smartbond hair products from this week, in compliance with an injunction granted by the High Court.

The Supreme Court rejection last week, on the grounds the application ‘does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance’, brings to a close a major part of litigation between Olaplex and L’Oréal that began in 2016. The courts are still to make a decision on damages.

Santa Barbara company Olaplex launched its Bond Multiplier product, developed by two chemists in a garage and designed to protect hair during bleach treatments, in 2014. L’Oréal launched its competing Smartbond product in 2015. Olaplex brought patent infringement proceedings, succeeding in the High Court and Court of Appeal, L’Oréal v Olaplex [2019] EWCA Civ 1943.

Dominic Hoar, senior associate at Hogan Lovells, which acted for Olaplex, said: ‘We are delighted with the decision by the Supreme Court, which means that Olaplex can finally look forward to some redress for L'Oréal's infringing acts.

‘The decision shows that the UK courts will protect true innovators, no matter the size of the infringer or how strong its willingness to fight.’ 

Issue: 7893 / Categories: Legal News , Patents
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll