Gold Bros stopped from selling Queen's tartan

A CHAIN of tourist gift shops was today banned from selling the tartan worn by the Queen at the opening of the Scottish Parliament.

The woman who holds the copyright to the Isle of Skye Tartan went to court to secure an interim interdict against the firm of Gold Brothers.

Rosemary Samios said she received a complaint that wool scarves using the design were being sold from their shops in and around Edinburgh's Royal Mile.

She claimed the firm was importing from China "substantial bolts of cloth" which infringe her design right.

Mrs Samios, of Sydney, Australia, has raised an intellectual property action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh against the firm and the partners in it Surinder, Galab and Dildar Singh.

She maintains she has suffered "serious moral and economic prejudice to the reputation of her registered design by reason of its application to cheap products of inferior design, quality and (in a number of instances) materials".

She also claims that they have made "substantial unfair profits from their infringing activities".

Judge Lady Dorrian granted an interim interdict against the firm from infringing the registered design right.

Mrs Samios said she holds the copyright to the Isle of Skye Tartan and the name had been added to the database of The Scottish Tartan Society.

It is said in her action: "The tartan has achieved considerable commercial success which was considerably boosted by the circumstances that the Isle of Skye Tartan clothing was worn by Her Majesty the Queen for the opening of the Scottish Parliament."

She said the Gold Brothers partnership has numerous shops selling tartan goods and souvenirs in Edinburgh as well as Glasgow, Callander, Pitlochry and St Andrews and also traded through internet sites.

Mrs Samios maintains in the action that one of the partners indicated they had been selling around 10,000 kilts a year using infringing copies of the design.

She said she was apprehensive that if they continue to sell goods in their stores which infringe her design right then her business will suffer further loss and damage over the summer.

The judge was told that the partnership was not opposing the move for an interim interdict.