Laura Thurgood and Danielle Laight, from the West Midlands, are fighting over who has the right to use the name “Wash Wiggle and Wag” for their rival dog grooming business
Two canine beauticians locked in a “vicious” High Court turf war have been told to settle their disputes out of court or risk a taxing fortune in the case.
Laura Thurgood and Danielle Laight are fighting over who has the right to use the name “Wash Wiggle and Wag” for their rival dog grooming business in the West Midlands.
Ms Thurgood claimed the “trademark” was hers and her former colleague misused it when they split, “ruining” her £90,000-a-year business with a “vicious” online smear campaign.
The couple are now locked in a legal dogfight, with Ms Thurgood claiming damages for the loss of her bankrupt business, but last week Judge Richard Hacon told them to settle their difference without wasting money on lawyers.
At a pre-trial hearing, he told the couple – whom he described as “not millionaires” – that they risked spending a lot of money on what was “not a big dispute”. He warned them: “Believe me, it will cost you more if it goes to trial.”
In documents filed in court, Ms Thurgood’s barrister Ian Silcock said she set up a thriving dog grooming business under the name “Wash Wiggle and Wag” in 2018.
He bought a special mobile grooming salon for his business, operating in his chosen territory from the back of a van. In June 2018, she and other family members teamed up with Ms Laight, another local pet groomer, to help grow the business, using her as a contractor as part of a business agreement, said he.
Ms Thurgood claims her business began to flourish over the next two years as the reputation of “Wash Wiggle and Wag” took root in the community, gaining more than 700 clients – with Ms Laight carrying out around 2,600 which is a repair session for his business.
But in May 2020, the two women’s working relationship broke down when Ms Laight left a letter terminating the partnership in Ms Thurgood’s van. The barrister said that since then, the name “Wash Wiggle and Wag” has been pinched by Ms Laight for her own business.
She also claims Ms Thurgood was “violently insulted” by her ex-partner on Instagram, Facebook and in a series of texts saying Ms Thurgood’s grooming “resulted in several dogs being injured and their owners pay huge bills from vets to treat injured dogs.”
In court, Mr Silcock claimed the allegedly defamatory publications were the beginning of the end for Ms Thurgood’s dog grooming service, which was put out of business.
He said he would seek damages for loss of earnings, pointing out that Ms Thurgood had projected an annual turnover of around £90,000 going forward.
The case went to court for a pre-trial directions hearing last week, where Judge Hacon urged Ms Laight, who is representing herself, and Ms Thurgood’s lawyers to settle the case out of court. court
He said: “In my view, the first thing that will happen is that the case will be stayed so that the parties can seek mediation. The reason I say this, Ms Laight, is that I would first guess that you and Ms. Thurgood are not eager to throw money at this trial.
“It’s not a big dispute. Really, spending a lot of money litigating things is not a good idea. Absolutely not. Hopefully there will be mediation. It will save you and Ms Thurgood a lot of money if settled it’s up to you. If unfortunately you can’t do it, it will all roll on.”
Ms Thurgood’s claim was for passing off, defamation, malicious misrepresentation and infringement of database rights, but the judge ordered it to continue as a passing off claim only.
In her written defence, Ms Laight argued Ms Thurgood was operating under the trade mark “Wash Wiggle & Wag” and insisted the social media messages and texts she sent were all reasonable.
One of the issues in the case was whether Ms Thurgood and Ms Laight were business partners, which Ms Laight told the judge was discussed but never written down.
He agreed to the suggestion of mediation to try to reach an agreement, telling the judge: “I want to resolve this amicably and as quickly as possible.” If the case is not resolved, it will proceed to a full trial in the High Court later this year.
