Summarize and humanize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in EnglishA woman who appeared on Dragon’s Den after inventing an indoor toilet for her dog is locked in a bitter trademark war with a rival ‘piddle patch’ maker.Rebecca Sloan, 39, appeared on the show in 2022, having first trademarked her product – real turf in a biodegradable litter tray for housetraining dogs – in 2016.The idea was a hit, securing offers from four dragons, with Ms Sloan eventually plumping for Steven Bartlett’s £50,000 offer for a 20 per cent stake in her company.But Ms Sloan, through her company Makeality Ltd, is now locked in a High Court trademark fight with rival, Laurencia Walker-Fooks, 34, and her firm City Doggo Ltd.Ms Sloan says Ms Walker-Fooks has infringed her trademark by selling her own similar product – a ‘real grass’ litter tray – under the name ‘Oui Oui Patch’ since November 2020.Her company is now suing for damages for trademark infringement and ‘passing off,’ as well as an injunction to prevent City Doggo doing so in future.But Ms Walker-Fooks is fighting the case, denying any trademark infringement.According to online marketing materials, the inspiration for Ms Sloan’s ‘Piddle Patch product came during a visit to the park. Dragon’s Den star Rebecca Sloan, 39, is suing a rival Laurencia Walker-Fooks for allegedly infringing on her trademarked indoor dog toilet (Ms Sloan is seen on Dragon’s Den in 2022) Ms Walker-Fooks (pictured) denies any trademark infringement over her dog toilet product’The dogs were happy to be in their natural environment and the stress associated with toilet time melted away because the dogs knew instinctively where to do their business,’ she said.’Wouldn’t it be great if we could replicate the outdoor experience indoors? Piddle Patch was born from that desire to bring a natural dog toilet solution into the home.’Piddle Patch is a biodegradable litter tray with real grass, which allows pooches to urinate indoors without making a mess while being housetrained.’It’s made from fresh grass and grown in recycled textiles, instead of soil, to produce a longer lasting grass with a thick root system,’ she says.Ms Walker-Fooks says she came up with her ‘real grass’ indoor dog toilet – known as ‘Oui Oui Patch’ – after experiencing the ‘stress and anxiety’ of housetraining her dog, Tinkerbell.’With our real grass pet potties, toilet training my second pup, Bambi, took half the time and half the effort,’ she says in her own marketing materials.’She knew the only place she was supposed to relieve herself was on grass from the day I got her.’The dog-loving duo are now locked in a High Court battle over their products, with preliminary disputes over the case already reaching the Court of Appeal. After appearing on Dragon’s Den. Ms Sloan secured a £50,000 investment from Steven Bartlett Pictured is her Piddle Patch indoor toilet which Ms Sloan took on the BBC investment show Setting out the dispute in a ruling on the case, Lord Justice Arnold said Ms Sloan’s company had registered its trademark in 2016, describing it as a ‘pet litter box tray containing real turf’ and ‘turf grass for use as pet litter and sold in a biodegradable box tray.”The claimant has marketed what is said to be an innovative product consisting of a patch of grass in a biodegradable box for toilet training pets under the trademark since September 2016, and claims to have generated substantial goodwill in connection with the trademark,’ he said.’Among other matters, the claimant relies upon the fact that its director Rebecca Sloan appeared on the well-known BBC television show Dragons’ Den in January 2022 with a view to obtaining investment in the claimant’s business – and was successful in getting offers of investment.’But he said she ran into problems, complaining about Ms Walker-Fooks’ City Doggo company selling their ‘Oui Oui Patch’ in November 2020.’The claimant contends that City Doggo’s use of the sign ‘Oui, Oui Patch’ infringes the trademark…and amounts to passing off, and that Ms Walker-Fooks is jointly liable,’ he said.’The claimant also complains that City Doggo has used the sign “piddlepatch”, ‘Piddle Patch’ (and) ‘PiddlePatch’ in various ways.’The claimant contends that such use infringes the trademark…and amounts to passing off and that Ms Walker-Fooks is jointly liable.’The defendants admit certain uses of this sign, which they contend were de minimis, but say that City Doggo stopped when the claimant complained. This is the ‘Oui Oui’ patch indoor dog toilet designed by Laurencia Walker-Fooks, director of City Doggo Ltd’The defendants deny infringement of the trademark or passing off by City Doggo, and deny that Ms Walker-Fooks is jointly liable for any infringement or passing off.’The case reached the Court of Appeal after a decision in the intellectual property division of the High Court by Judge Richard Hacon to transfer the case to the ‘small claims’ category.The judge said Ms Sloan’s company had not put forward sufficient evidence to show that the case is worth more than £10,000 to them, or that it is a complex case.Her company appealed, arguing the case should not have been categorised as ‘small claims,’ which limits the amounts in damages and lawyers’ costs which might be recoverable.But Lord Justice Arnold, sitting with Lord Justice Holroyde and Lord Justice Dingemans, rejected the appeal, meaning the case will proceed as a ‘small claims’ dispute in the High Court.He said no evidence of the profits made by Ms Sloan’s company had been put forward, while Ms Walker-Fooks had estimated that hers made less than £4,000 selling 11,800 products – mostly of her litter tray – in three-and-a-half years.’On the evidence before the court, which was very little, it was more likely than not the relevant profits of both the claimant and City Doggo were below £10,000,’ the judge said.’The problem which the claimant faces is entirely of its own making: it was challenged to produce evidence to support its contention that the financial value of the claim exceeded £10,000, but it failed to do so.’The claimant contends that the judge was not justified in concluding that little was at stake and therefore the parties should be required to resolve their dispute within the constraints imposed by the small claims track.’This contention rests upon the premise that the judge was wrong to assess the financial value of the claim as being below £10,000, and probably well below that figure.’For reasons given above, the judge was fully entitled to proceed on that basis.’Given that the financial value of the claim is below £10,000, and that it can be tried in the small claims track in one day, the judge was entitled to conclude that the overriding objective, and in particular the requirement to determine claims at proportionate cost, meant that the claim should be allocated to the small claims track.’He dismissed Ms Sloan’s company’s appeal, meaning her case will proceed as a High Court ‘small claim.’
Keep Reading
