Dragons’ Den entrepreneur wins High Court battle over ‘Piddle Patch’ dog toilet
An entrepreneur who received an investment of £50,000 Dragon’s Lair The innovative indoor dog litter box has won a High Court battle against a rival businesswoman over its ‘piddle patch’ product.
Rebecca Sloan, 39, first trademarked her product, real grass in a biodegradable litter tray for home-schooling dogs, in 2016.
Her idea attracted a lot of attention on the BBC show in 2022, prompting bids from four Dragons, with Ms Sloan eventually accepting a £50,000 investment from Steven Bartlett.
But Ms Sloan, through her company Makeality Ltd, has been involved in a trademark dispute in the High Court with rival indoor dog toilet manufacturer Laurencia Walker-Fooks, 34, and her company City Doggo Ltd.
Ms. Sloan alleged that Ms. Walker-Fooks, who is also the chief operating officer of hedge fund Anahata Capital Management LLC, knowingly infringed on her trademark in online marketing materials to capitalize on Piddle Patch’s fame.
Following a hearing at the High Court in Manchester, the judge found the breach was “deliberate”; This means Ms. Sloan’s company will receive a compensation payment that has not yet been assessed.
District Judge Araba Obodai said Ms Walker-Fooks “knew exactly what she was doing” when she launched what Ms Sloan claimed was a “campaign of infringement”.
He said using the phrase “piddle patch” embedded in website domains and web pages was “a deliberate attempt to commercially exploit the use of the trademark” by redirecting traffic to his company’s site.
“It had the desired effect because, as the plaintiff alleges, City Doggo’s website ranked next to the plaintiff’s website when consumers searched for Piddle Patch,” the judge said.
It found Ms Walker-Fooks and City Doggo were guilty of “disguised themselves” by “misrepresenting to the public that the defendants’ product belonged to or was commercially associated with the plaintiff”.
“Furthermore, based on Ms. Walker-Fooks’ answers during cross-examination, I find that when she began her campaign of infringement, her aim was to circumvent just that.”
The court heard Ms Sloan had been marketing the product “a piece of grass in a biodegradable box for toilet training pets” under the Piddle Patch trademark since September 2016, and claimed she had created “significant goodwill” in connection with this.
According to online marketing materials, the inspiration for the ‘Piddle Patch’ product came during a visit to the park.
“The dogs were happy to be in their natural environment and the stress associated with toilet time was eliminated because the dogs instinctively knew where to do their business,” Ms Sloan said.
“Wouldn’t it be great if we could replicate the outdoor experience indoors? Piddle Patch was born out of a desire to bring a natural dog toilet solution to homes.”
Piddle Patch is a biodegradable litter tray containing real grass, allowing dogs to urinate indoors without making a mess while being house trained.
Ms Walker-Fooks said she also came up with her own “real grass” indoor dog litter box, known as the ‘Oui Oui Patch’, after going through the “stress and anxiety” of house training her dog Tinkerbell.
“With our real grass pet potties, potty training my second puppy, Bambi, took half the time and half the effort,” its own marketing materials say.
“From the day I picked him up, he knew that the only place he needed to go to the toilet was the grass.”
The two women clashed after Ms Sloan, through her company Makeality Limited, accused Ms Walker-Fooks and City Doggo of infringing the Piddle Patch trademark.
These words were used in online marketing materials for the Oui Oui Patch, and domain names using these words were purchased and directed traffic to Ms Walker-Fooks’ site.
The words appeared in the website’s source code, landing page titles, and blog posts, while two of the Piddle Patch domains were acquired by City Doggo within three days of Mrs. Sloan’s Dragons’ Den being revealed.
In court, Ms Walker-Fooks admitted using the words but said it was only for search engine optimization and was also “too trivial to be actionable” in trademark law.
But in sentencing, District Judge Obodai said of Ms Walker-Fooks: “As I listened to her give evidence, I got the distinct impression that she was trying to persuade the court that she was naive in business and intellectual property matters. “I was not persuaded by her portrayal.
“I think City knew exactly what it was doing when it founded Doggo and [Ms Sloan’s barrister] Ms Rogers described this as ‘a campaign of infringement starting in May 2022’.
“I am satisfied with Ms Sloan’s evidence and prefer her evidence to that of Ms Walker-Fooks; the number of infringements, their nature and significance, and their likely individual and cumulative impact on the function of the trademarks mean that the infringements themselves cannot be described as strictly negligible or trivial.
“I also found that these were not isolated or coincidental events but a deliberate policy to promote the sign in the relevant market.
“The defendants clearly and deliberately intended to use Piddle Patch and its variants to promote their products because of the goodwill of the trademark.
“I have considered them and am satisfied and accept that each of them misrepresented to the public that the defendant’s product belonged to or was commercially associated with the plaintiff.
“Furthermore, based on Ms. Walker-Fooks’ answers during cross-examination, I find that when she began her campaign of infringement, her aim was to circumvent just that.”
The case will now return to court to consider compensation payable to Ms Sloan’s company, although the amount was capped at a maximum of £10,000 by the previous judge.
