For example, Barclays is now engaged in litigation with an east Midlands accountancy firm over its new campaign "Barclays, now there's a thought" which has replaced the "Fluent in finance" line which it has used for the past three years.
The reason for the litigation is that the accountancy firm, Cooper Parry have asserted that they have used this slogan "Now there's a thought" for the past five years.
Round one of the litigation has already taken place with Barclays preventing Cooper Parry from obtaining an injunction to stop the multi-million pound campaign.
However, as BBC News point out, the Judge has called for an early trial so that the legal issues can be resolved prior to Christmas.
On the face of it, it is all to play for for both parties.
Nevertheless I have 2 observations on this case:
First, Cooper Parry are not alleging trademark infringement. Effectively they appear to be relying on breach of unregistered rights. This is something more difficult prove than alleged trademark infringement.
Second, if Copper Parry can prove their case they are going to need some mighty good evidence to prove quantum. How can you prove your level of financial losses bearing in mind that you are dealing with something so intangible as how a slogan fits into someone's mind?
It is certainly possible but, is it easy?
Therefore the key in this case is the injunction- Stop the campaign and then the stop the potential losses.
Litigation is always unpredictable but for Cooper Parry my recommendation is this-
Get yourself a nice, detailed (quality) Counsel's opinion and review it very carefully.