A Waterford-based company that sells professional beauty products has launched High Court proceedings against a rival it claims is passing off its goods and has “cloned” the complainant’s website.

The action has been brought by Airmount Beauty Limited, trading as The Manicure Company, against Manitrnd Ltd, with a registered address in Kilmuckridge, Gorey, Co Wexford.

The plaintiff, which sells, distributes, and promotes beauty products including nail polish, claims that, several weeks ago, it discovered that the defendant had set up a website that is likely to cause confusion regarding the product range offered for sale by Airmount.

Airmount claims the text used in the defendant’s website corresponds almost exactly with that of the plaintiff. It is also claimed that product images paid for by Airmount appear to have been used by the defendant.

The defendant, it is alleged, has edited these images by placing their brand name on the imagery and removing Airmount’s.

Airmount also claims that it ordered a sample of products offered for sale through the Manitrnd’s website to compare them with those items the plaintiff offers for sale.

Strikingly similar

It claims that the general set up of those products is strikingly similar.

In its action Airmount, represented by Gary McCarthy SC and Neil Rafter and solicitor Mark Walsh of Kenny Stephenson Chapman, seeks various injunctions restraining the defendant from advertising offering for sale or distributing anything that resembles the plaintiff’s products.

Airmount, which is based in Waterford City, also seeks an injunction restraining the defendant from using its database . It further seeks damages for what it claims is a breach of contract, negligence and misrepresentation by Manitrnd.

Mr McCarthy told the court that the matter was urgent,and should come before the courts as soon as possible as his client fears that the defendant’s action will damage its business. Counsel said that in recent years his client has been very successful,and had become a leader in what is “a very competitive market”.

However, it is their case that the defendant has “cloned” or “cogged” Airmount’s website.

This “copycatting” of the website, which made it virtually identical to his client’s, was “unfair”, counsel added.

Typographical error

Counsel said that a typographical error in relation to one particular product that appears on his client’s website, also appears on the defendant’s website.

What the defendants are doing, counsel said, was generating confusion among customers.

Airmount’s solicitors wrote to the defendant asking them to cease and desist passing off any goods that were likely to be confused with their own, and to take down its website. No response has been received, the court heard.

The matter came before Mr Justice Mark Sanfey at the High Court on Tuesday. The judge, on an ex-parte basis, granted the applicant permission to serve short notice of the proceedings on the defendant.

The matter will return before the courts later this week.