Toy giant Jellycat sue Next and Hamleys over cuddly copycat accusations

Toy giant Jellycat is taking rivals to court over accusations of copycat hugging.

The company accused Next and Hamleys of copying toys with “significant” damage over claims they produced similar products of “inferior quality”, according to High Court documents.

Jellycat has enjoyed great success in recent years with its product range of hundreds of cuddly toys, including food products such as gherkins and croissants. Prices range from £25 to £100.

The company’s lawyers said in court documents that the company has two main lines of cuddly toys: the Loveables line, which is based on animals, and the Amuseables line, which is based on about 500 everyday objects and foods. But they claimed the biscuit-shaped Next cushion and door stopper and numerous Hamley plush toys shaped like various foods and items, including footballs and basketballs, were “copied” from Jellycat products.

Jellycat said it was “not possible to estimate the financial value with confidence at this time” of either claim but believed the value would be “significant”.

The company is also seeking an injunction that would prevent Next and Hamley’s from “selling” their products as Jellycat’s in the future.

Hamleys has not yet filed a defense against it but Next’s lawyers said the retail chain denies “any infringing activity has taken place”.

The hearing on both allegations has not yet taken place.

Jellycat’s lawyer, Stuart Baran, said in his written statement that the company sells products in more than 70 countries.

Fun Items, he said, are “cherished around the world for being both soft and squishy.” toys and collectibles” and more than 11 million units have been sold in the UK.

Mr Baran added that the “essential features” of the designs of the Amuseables range meant that they “referred to and were distinct from the claimant’s soft toys and were relied upon as such by the relevant consumers”.

But he said Next and Hamleys’ products showed “high similarity” to Jellycat’s products, which amounted to “misrepresentation” as it could lead customers to believe they were Jellycat’s products.

He said it was “reasonable to infer” that Next and Hamleys had either copied Jellycat products, produced Amuseables products as a reference, or “had Amusables products in mind” and that both companies “intended that such misrepresentation would arise”.

Mr Baran said both Next and Hamleys’ toys were of “lower quality” than those made by Jellycat, damaging the company’s reputation and eliminating sales it would otherwise make.

In Next’s defense of the claim, attorney Ashton Chantrielle said it was legal even though the company continued to sell its products.

He said claims that they were copied from Jellycat’s products were “completely vague” and claims that Next was selling its products as if they were Jellycat’s products were “misunderstood”.

He added that Next products are different from Jellycats because “the old one is not like that.” toys”, adding: “Next is not aware that Jellycat currently sells or offers for sale door bumpers or cushions.

“The facilities do not understand how Next products could divert sales away from Jellycat.”

He continued: “There is no risk that consumers will be misled into thinking of collaboration with and/or endorsement by Jellycat.”

“It is denied that Jellycat suffered any loss and/or damage as a result of Next carrying out (carrying out) the acts complained of,” the lawyer said.