FourFourSeconds ago, Benford’s Law was first introduced to the legal world.
It’s a simple, straightforward idea.
If you want to make a complaint about a football team’s shirt, it must include a copy of the shirt’s “Benford’s” trademarked name.
And the law allows a small amount of room for interpretation.
The law also applies to certain kinds of shirts that don’t have trademarks, and not to all shirts that do have them.
This is because Benford and his lawyers have argued that the trademarked names for some of the football shirts don’t really matter, and that they should be considered for the purposes of the law.
And so far, it’s not looking like the law is going to change.
On Monday, Benfield’s Law passed the House of Lords with a vote of 96 to 0, with only Labour voting against it.
This prompted the British Footballers’ Association to launch a legal challenge to the law, saying it was unconstitutional.
And they’re hoping to get a hearing before the Supreme Court.
In a letter to the Court, Benfords lawyer Michael Green QC said the law was “unnecessary and ill-advised”.
“It would be absurd for a small number of footballers to be able to sue a company that does not have a valid trademark on its name,” Green wrote.
“The issue is whether the trademark is valid for purposes of trademark law and if so, the effect of such a trademark on the use of the mark.”
In a statement, Benfreds chief executive Peter Schlossberg said the company was disappointed by the House’s decision.
“Our players will be able play and support their football team for years to come with pride in the crest of their clubs,” he said.
“It is not the right time to make changes to a legal system that has been in place for over a century and that has protected the rights of players for decades.”