A dog groomer has won a court fight after suing a rival pooch pamperer who stole her customers and Wash Wiggle and Wag trading name, causing her £90,000-a-year business to go bust.
Laura Thurgood sued former worker Danielle Laight over the right to use the distinctive name for their competing dog grooming firms in the West Midlands.
Ms Thurgood claimed the Wash Wiggle and Wag name is hers and that her ex-colleague wrongly used it for her own company after they fell out and parted ways, destroying her business amid accusations of a vicious online smear campaign.
Ms Laight insisted she has every right to use the name, denying claims of misrepresentation and claiming she began using the name Wash Wiggle and Wag independently, having worked on her own as a groomer for two years before linking up with Ms Thurgood in 2018.
But Judge David Stone today ruled Ms Laight had indulged in misrepresentation, which caused damage to Ms Thurgoods business in the run-up to its collapse in late 2020.
Londons High Court heard that Ms Thurgood had set up her thriving dog grooming business under the Wash Wiggle and Wag name in 2018.
She bought a special mobile grooming van in which to ply her trade, covering a 30-mile orbit around Redditch, Solihull and Birmingham from the back of a van.
Laura Thurgood (pictured) sued former worker Danielle Laight over the right to use the distinctive name for their competing dog grooming businesses in the West Midlands
Ms Laight insisted she has every right to use the name, denying claims of misrepresentation but she lost her court battle against her former colleague
In June 2018, she and other family members teamed up with Ms Laight, another local pet groomer, to help grow the enterprise, using her as a contractor as part of a business agreement.
The judge, explaining the narrative of the falling out between the two women, said: Ms Thurgoods dog grooming business had approximately 838 customers, of whom 700 were regular/return customers, many of whom booked repeat grooms at six- to eight-week intervals. All customers were within 30 miles of Redditch. Reviews on various websites were positive.
Ms Laight had set up a company under the name Wash Wiggle and Wag Ltd in May 2020, the court heard.
The judge said: The business relationship broke down in or about May 2020. The Thurgoods had become concerned that Ms Laight was taking off-book appointments - that is, undertaking mobile grooms in the course of her work, but not accounting to Ms Thurgood for the money paid by customers.
On collecting the van on May 22, 2020, Ms Thurgood found a letter of resignation from Ms Laight.
Ms Thurgood said that her business deteriorated rapidly during June and July 2020.
Ms Laights evidence was that she had taken with her on resignation the contact details of approximately 250 customers of Ms Thurgoods business, whom Ms Laight then contacted.
There was clear evidence before me that (former) customers of Ms Thurgoods business used Ms Laights services offered under Wash Wiggle and Wag Limited.
Ms Thurgood (pictured) claimed the Wash Wiggle and Wag name is hers and that her former colleague wrongly used it for her own firm after they fell out and parted ways
Ms Laight (pictured) says the working arrangement she previously had with Ms Thurgood was a partnership, Londons High Court was told
On 14 September 2020, Ms Thurgood sent a text message to existing customers offering free grooms, to encourage more trade. Shortly thereafter, Ms Thurgood decided to abandon dog grooming under the sign WASH WIGGLE & WAG.
Ms Thurgood also claimed she had been viciously libelled by her former partner on Instagram, Facebook and in a series of texts which claimed Ms Thurgoods grooming had resulted in a number of dogs being injured and their owners incurring large bills from vets to treat the injured dogs.
However the defamation allegations were not given permission to proceed to trial after a judge in February this year ruled that the cost of trying those allegations would be greater than any potential benefit to Ms Thurgood should she win.
Ms Thurgood claimed Ms Laight, 28, has damaged the good will associated with her company and by passing off Wash Wiggle and Wag as hers had stolen a name which has become uniquely associated with her business profile.
She sued both her personally and her company Wash Wiggle and Wag Ltd.
Giving his judgment today Judge Stone said: Goodwill has been described as the attractive force which brings in custom.
The goodwill which I have found to have existed by the time of Ms Laights resignation must have belonged to Ms Thurgood - she was the owner of the business trading under WASH WIGGLE & WAG.
Laura Thurgood (pictured) bought a special mobile grooming salon to ply her trade, covering a 30-mile orbit around Redditch, Solihull and Birmingham from the back of a van
Danielle Laight has denied claims of misrepresentation over the disputed company name
The goodwill did not belong to Ms Laight, who was grooming within Ms Thurgoods business: the goodwill her grooms generated was Ms Thurgoods, not Ms Laights.
I also reject Ms Laights submission that the goodwill attached to her as a dog groomer rather than to the business for which she groomed.
Customers were clearly aware of the WASH WIGGLE & WAG name, and that Ms Laight was not the proprietor of the business. Whilst there was clearly some personal loyalty to Ms Laight, and positive reviews of her grooming services, that does not detract from the legal position that the goodwill generated was the goodwill of the business, not Ms Laights personally.
I am therefore completely satisfied that Ms Thurgood owned goodwill in WASH WIGGLE & WAG in relation to dog grooming within the territory.
I am also satisfied that Ms Laights adoption of WASH WIGGLE & WAG as the name for her own business grooming dogs in the territory constituted (and constitutes) a misrepresentation. The sign used by Ms Laight is identical to that used by Ms Thurgood. It is used for identical services.
Danielle Laight (pictured) told Londons High Court: My argument is that I began using the name "Wash Wiggle and Wag" independently
The battle between the two dog groomers was heard at Londons High Court (pictured)
I am also satisfied that the defendants misrepresentation caused damage to Ms Thurgoods business. I do not for a moment accept on the evidence before me that Ms Thurgoods business collapsed because of poor customer service, either from alleged injury to a dog or from the way customers bookings were taken.
There was simply no evidence before me that these issues were difficulties for the business. There was clear evidence that Ms Laight had diverted customers from Ms Thurgoods business to Ms Laights business - this damaged Ms Thurgoods business. Customer numbers fell dramatically.
The level of the damage is potentially a matter for another day, so I will say no more about it. But I am completely satisfied that there was sufficient damage for the tort of passing off to be made out.
It follows that I find for Ms Thurgood: her claim for passing off against the defendants has been established, the judge concluded.
The issue of what damages Ms Laight must pay to Ms Thurgood and who must pay the five figure legal costs for the case will be decided at a later date.