Jellycat, the cuddly toy company, is suing Next and Hamleys for what it describes as “substantial” damages, alleging that both retailers have copied its designs and produced “inferior quality” products. According to High Court documents, Jellycat claims that Next and Hamleys have been “passing off” their items as Jellycat’s, while also asserting that Hamleys infringed its registered designs.
Allegations of copying
Jellycat’s barristers stated in court documents that the company has two main product ranges: the Loveables range, featuring animal-based toys, and the Amuseables range, which includes nearly 500 everyday objects and foods. They allege that a Next cushion and doorstop shaped like a biscuit, along with multiple Hamleys plushies resembling foods and sports items like a football and basketball, are “copied” from Jellycat’s products.
Jellycat said it cannot “presently estimate the financial value” of either claim but believes the damages will be “substantial.” It is also seeking injunctions to prevent Next and Hamleys from continuing to pass off their products as Jellycat’s.
Defence from Next
Hamleys has not yet filed a defence, but Next’s barristers have denied “that any infringing acts have been carried out.” In written submissions, Jellycat’s barrister Stuart Baran noted that the firm sells products in over 70 countries. He highlighted that the Amuseables “have become cherished worldwide as both soft toys and collectables,” with more than 11 million sold in the UK alone.
Mr. Baran argued that the “key features” of the Amuseables designs mean they “have come to denote and be distinctive of the soft toys of the claimant and none other.” He claimed that the Next and Hamleys products show “high similarity” to Jellycat’s, amounting to “a misrepresentation” that could lead customers to believe they are Jellycat items. He said it is “reasonable to infer” that the retailers either copied the designs or had them in mind, and intended such misrepresentation.
Impact on reputation and sales
Mr. Baran continued that both the Next and Hamleys toys are of “inferior quality” compared to Jellycat’s, damaging the company’s reputation and diverting sales. In response, Next’s barrister Ashton Chantrielle argued that the claims of copying are “wholly unparticularised” and that allegations of passing off are “misconceived.” He noted that Next’s items are not toys, adding: “Next is not aware of Jellycat currently selling or offering for sale doorstops or cushions. In the premises, it is not understood how the Next products can divert sales away from Jellycat.”
Mr. Chantrielle concluded: “There is no risk that consumers will be deceived into thinking that there is a collaboration with and/or endorsement by Jellycat. It is denied that Jellycat has suffered any loss and/or damage caused by Next having carried out the acts complained of.” A hearing in either claim is yet to be scheduled.
