Ethica Diamonds, Truro, Elaine Reffell speaks out over case

Mum-of-two Elaine Reffell, 52, owns Ethica Diamonds, an ethical jewellers based in Cornwall, which sells lab-grown diamonds and gemstones for the fraction of the price of mined gems.

But she has been embroiled in a lengthy legal battle with her ex-husband Jason Foreman - who tried to trademark her company's name.

Pictured Elaine and Jason with their two children Tom and Emily before their divorce. SWNS (Image: SWNS)

Now, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), has ruled in Ms Reffell's favour and found that Mr Foreman's actions were done in "bad faith."

He had tried to register the name 'Ethica Diamonds' under his own business Diotima & Co Limited - a company set up by himself and his new wife, Avila Foreman.

Legal papers from the UKIPO confirm that he was willing to give the trademarked name back to Ms Reffell if she paid him £30,000 plus £2,500 every month for three years.

Mr Foreman applied for the trademark with the knowledge that his former wife of 24 years was planning to re-brand her business under the name, the hearing ruled.

In its findings, the UKIPO said: "The pre-emptive action of Party A (Jason Foreman and his current wife Avila Foreman) applying for its contested mark does amount to an act of bad faith.

"It appears that its sole purpose was to cause difficulty to Party B (Elaine and Emily Reffell) and to provide a tool that could be used to extract monies from Party B."

It was ruled that he had prior knowledge that his ex-wife and daughter, Emily, who also works at the business, were planning to re-brand to Ethica Diamonds before he registered the trademark.

The Ethica Diamonds team. SWNS (Image: SWNS)

Speaking after the case, Ms Reffell, of Truro, said: "I can't believe how big it's all become.

"I cried for half an hour when I found out the ruling - it's been so horrible for my children and my daughter cried too."

Ms Reffell started her business in 2010, when she became interested in the diamond industry and how unethical mining and the marketing around the gems were.

She sought to provide an ethical alternative for the fraction of the price, allowing people a "guilt and shame free option that they didn't have to go into debt for."

When her daughter Emily, 24, left school, she joined the team and became the director of business in 2017.

Ms Reffell said the business made little money for the first few years, and mainly focused on educating people on the diamond industry.

Her ex-husband was initially a joint director of the business, but was bought out by Ms Reffell following their divorce.

She said: "When we separated, we didn't even go to solicitors.

"We had a financial settlement that went through court, that essentially agreed that we wouldn't step on each other's toes in terms of business and we would split the equity on our houses 50/50.

"He had been involved in the business, but not in the day-to-day running. When we separated it started to bother my daughter that his name would still be on the articles even though we did all the work.

"We tried to keep it amicable, but we eventually bought him out of the business."

The UKIPO report, from September 30, 2022, said that Mr Foreman "Fought to the death on everything" and that much of his evidence was "irrelevant."

It also added that: "Party A (Jason and Avila Foreman) had no basis for bringing the case and that fundamentally he was trying to disrupt Party B (Elaine and Emily Reffell)’s activities.”

A "bad faith" ruling in trademark law relates to a "dishonest intention or other sinister motive".

It is relatively difficult to prove bad faith, as good faith is automatically presumed.

As Mr and Mrs Foreman withdrew their claim to the trademark ten days before the trial, they could not submit evidence at the trial and the case was ruled on a prima facie basis.

Ms Reffell says she was forced to spend over £100,000 in legal fees over the past two years.

She has been awarded 'above scale costs', following the hearing, but the amount of compensation is not yet known.

But she does not think it will cover the damage it has done to her business, or make up for the strain it has put on her children.

READ NEXT:

Water company pledges to reduce sewage spills at beach within two weeks

She said: "It's been crippling financially and emotionally.

"We haven't been able to enjoy what we've done with the business because it's been overshadowed with this negativity.

"My children Emily and Tom have suffered immensely.

"I can't put into words how emotional it's been.

"I'm just thankful it's over."

In response to the report, Mrs Avila Foreman said: "Whilst I don’t wish to speak about the judgement itself, I do wish to clarify that when it came to the bad faith claim, we were unable to defend ourselves because my husband and I withdrew our rights to the contested marks prior to the hearing.

"Our late withdrawal was based on commercial reasons, but more importantly on financial ones. We were told that removing ourselves ‘from the fight’ and withdrawing our rights to these marks would effectively streamline the case, thus significantly reducing costs for both parties.

"Commercially it makes no difference whether a mark is withdrawn or cancelled, and we were counselled (incorrectly) that the cancellation action would therefore be removed from the hearing.

"This has been a very unfortunate and frankly traumatising situation. It is beyond anything else, deeply sad for everyone."