News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Don Marketing, the sales promotion agency alleging Shell breached copyright on the idea it used to create the Shell Smart card scheme, has placed an advertisement in this week’s Marketing Week warning businesses they may face legal action if they join the scheme.
Click to continue reading “Don Marketing posts warning about Shell”
Any business contemplating becoming a partner in the SMART consortium scheme is hereby notified that any such participation may involve an infringement of rights, rendering it liable to legal action. For further information, see our website at: www.don-marketing.com
John Alfred Donovan (Plaintiff) and Shell UK Limited (Defendant)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION CH 1998 -D- No. 2149
Any business contemplating becoming a partner in the SMART consortium scheme is hereby notified that any such participation may involve an infringement of rights, rendering it liable to legal action. For further information, see our website at: www.don-marketing.com
Link to Original Legal Notice
Picture Caption: Shell: Don Marketing’s battle over the Smart concept is its fourth High Court action against the UK company
I am writing in response to Alan Mitchell’s article about the key to loyalty card survival (MWMay 14).
He mentioned Shell’s aspiration to reach 8 million members within a year “legal battles with disgruntled sales promotion agencies permitting” - a reference to our High Court action against Shell. “Disgruntled” is not the description I would choose.
Frankly, I am absolutely pissed off with Shell UK. Let me explain why. The multimillion pound claim in respect of the Smart consortium concept operated by Shell in the UK and in several other countries is not our first High Court action against Shell UK. It is the fourth. All involve breach of confidence and/or breach of contract. All involve the same Shell UK national promotions manager. It has been going on for five drawn out years.
I also want to set the record straight regarding a statement issued by Shell UK on or around April 21 1998 in which it gave the impression that I am a vexatious litigant, who issues High Court actions in respect of bogus claims. In fact, Shell has already settled the first three actions in our favour.
I even received an unsolicited letter of apology from Dr Fay, the chairman of Shell UK, admitting that its dealings with us did not meet “the high standards we set ourselves and which our long relationship had led you to expect of us”. I have now issued libel proceedings against Shell UK for defamation in regard to its press statement.
As Shell is well aware, we were not the only sales promotion agency which complained to Shell UK about the business practices of the relevant manager. Even its retained promotions agency eventually refused to disclose confidential information in his presence. We are, however, the only agency which has been brave enough (or foolish enough) to take on one of the world’s leading multi- national Goliaths.
I do not recommend anyone else to follow our path. Litigation on such a scale has a destructive effect on business and family. Shell UK and its lawyers have bombarded my company and my family with threats over the years (verbally and in writing). Some have come from the highest levels of Shell UK management.
However, we will see it through to the end, as we are determined that right will prevail over might.
It is only fair to mention for the record, that in the interests of justice, Sir John Jennings, the chairman of Shell Transport & Trading Company up to June 1997, personally interceded in our legal battles with Shell UK. I had several brief meetings with him. He upheld Shell’s Statement of General Business Principles requiring honesty, integrity and openness in all of Shell’s dealings.
Mitchell mentioned Shell’s desire to expand the number of partners in Smart. With the objective of avoiding publicity that could have damaged Shell’s plans to expand the scheme, it was agreed over a year ago that Shell would, in effect, take the Smart claim up to the “discovery” stage, without any legal proceedings being commenced.
As litigation is now underway, that arrangement has ended. I am therefore sending legal notifications to existing Smart partners reserving rights to take legal action if they continue to participate in the scheme that Shell is conducting without our consent.
We will also be notifying potential partners.
John Donovan
Don Marketing
Bury St Edmunds
Suffolk
MARKETING WEEK MAY 21 1998
LINK TO ORIGINAL PUBLICATION ON PAGE 34 OF MARKETING WEEK
http://www.shellnews.net/PDFs/MarketingWeekletter21May1998.pdf
Article being added to our Online Archive
21 May 1998
Don Marketing, the sales promotion agency embroiled in a legal wrangle with Shell UK, is threatening to send letters to Shell’s 1,700 service stations warning owners about the-legal implications of operating the Smart card scheme.
Managing director John Donovan intends to send a “letter before action” to a sample station - Tim Brinton Cars in Bury St Edmunds - then roll out the mailing to the entire network at a later date.
The proposed “letter before action” warns that Don Marketing has the legal right to seek damages against any company participating in the Shell Smart scheme without consent from John Donovan.
Shell’s solicitor DJ Freeman has written to Donovan’s solicitors Royds Treadwell warning that “the sending of such notices amounts to an inducement to breach their contractual commitments to our clients, and as such, are unlawful”.
But Donovan is adamant that the letter will be sent even though the full mailing to all service stations will cost thousands of pounds.
“It is our firm intention to send it and if stations continue to operate the Smart scheme we will issue further proceedings to stop them,” he says.
Don Marketing has issued two writs alleging Shell UK breached copyright on the concept idea used to create the Smart card loyalty programme and for alleged defamation of Donovan in a press statement (MW April 16 and 23).
Shell has been warned by its solicitors not to speak to the press following Donovan’s defamation action.
The company issued a statement saying: “The proper forum for resolving these matters is in court and proceedings are moving forward to enable them to be resolved there.”
Marketing Week May 21 1998
Having been caught red-handed stealing our intellectual property, Shell settled by making a substantial payment to us. Frankly we were shocked at the arrogance, lies and subterfuge.
Click to continue reading “Marketing Week: ASA dragged into Shell UK Smart battle”
Shell’s Smart card - currently the subject of a High Court dispute over its copyright - is being extended to cover 25 brand partners.
Marketing Magazine
7 May 1998
Marketing: Shell broadens base
Shell’s Smart card - currently the subject of a High Court dispute over its copyright - is being extended to cover 25 brand partners.
Card holders in much of the UK can currently only collect points at Shell or John Menzies and redeem them at Shell, UCI cinemas, John Menzies, and Super-Bowl.
But following a year-long test in Scotland, consumers can now collect points on purchases from Vision Express, Avis Rent A Car, Vauxhall, Hilton Hotels, British Gas and others.
The list of outlets card holders can spend points at is much longer and includes retailers such as Next and Dixons, and leisure brands such as airline KLM UK and Le Shuttle.
Over four million people collect Shell Smart points, making it one of the largest non-supermarket loyalty schemes.
Original Article
“Any impartial assessment of the evidence would show that the case is indefensible on Shell’s part,” says Don Marketing managing director John Donovan. “This is a matter of principle. One of the largest companies in the world shouldn’t need to steal ideas from promotional agencies.
ARTICLE BEING ADDED TO OUR ONLINE ARCHIVE
May 1998
Shell UK is being sued for allegedly breaching copyright on the idea it used to create Shell Smart Card, its loyalty programme.
John Donovan, managing director of Don Marketing UK, has issued the High Court Writ alleging that the current Smart scheme operated by Shell is based on a proposal that his company disclosed to the oil company in confidence. The writ also alleges breach of contract.
In 1989, Donovan’s company presented the idea of a multibrand loyalty card scheme to Paul King, who at that time was Shell UK’s national promotions manager. In July 1990, Shell took the option.
Further discussions between the two companies continued between 1990 and 1994, however, in February 1994, Shell said that there was no further point of discussion and launched the programme later that year.
Meanwhile, Shell is about to roll-out the Smart Card multi-company loyalty programme nationwide.
: Thanks for your question John The Shell Contributory Pension Fund was funded 130% or thereabouts a couple of years ago. This meant that it could meet its future actuarially calculated commitments + 30%. Some of us at the time (certainly me) argued that Shell should recognise this strength by alleviating the financial plight of many of the poorer pensioners in the fund. For example those thousands with annual pensions of less than £7500 per annum, who had worked for Shell for 20+ years and who were now in their seventies (or older). Shell had previously given a commitment that “…the real value of your pension [will be] maintained” – a promise that was clearly not be honoured insofar as poorer pensioners was concerned. The case that we made was rejected by Shell. Instead of helping pensioners they decided to help themselves by stopping contributions to the fund. There were two effects of this – one I am sure about and one I surmise. The first effect is that the retention of cash rather than its move into the fund helped Shell’s UK bottom line/cash generation. The second is (my guess here) that by improving Shell’s UK bottom line certain executives at the top of Shell in the UK befitted in their bonus payments!
: QUESTION TO FORMER SHELL EXEC PADDY BRIGGS: Paddy a year ago Shell UK said its pension scheme was so well-funded that it could take a contributions holiday. I seem to recall someone saying this was safe unless there was a stock market crash. The link below is to a related FT article... http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/10/09/financial-times-shell-reverts-to-a-vanished-norm/ Is there any possible adverse consequence to the Shell UK pension fund from the current "collapse" in equities (and the Shell share price), as reported by the FT this morning?
: One of the reasons that Shell’s Corrib development got into difficulties is that the Irish Government failed to commission a proper Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) into the project. CBA assesses not only the P&L and conventional (mainly local) HSE implications of a project but ALL aspects, including the social and extra-environmental. The same applies to Tar Sands. Oxfam is quite right to raise the issue at this time when the risks and very real dangers of failed regulation of corporations are in the public eye. The Canadian Government should go ahead with a thorough CBA at a global impact level and not be blinded by the chimera of the attractions of Energy Independence.
: Sokari Ekine states that people in Ogoniland believe that Shell are again going to come back into Ogoniland under the guise of NNPC (what nonsense!!). Of course he/they will say this as they are fearful that NNPC will be worse than any international oil company. NNPC will NOT be as tolerant as Shell, NNPC will NOT provide money for communities as Shell have, NNPC will not listen as Shell does. Ogoni's need to wake up to reality.
: Hi! The post is really interesting! I've read your blog and can say it's a good job.
: test
: REPLY TO “In the business”: I have never stated or thought that Shell and everyone who works for Shell is bad. On the contrary, I have no doubt that the vast majority of its employees are decent hardworking people. With regard to the positive initiatives of Shell, I am the person who added the sections about the Shell Foundation, LiveWire etc to Wikipedia. As you correctly say, we publish all news about Shell, the good, the bad and the ugly – some of the latter is in the pipeline. We have always published all positive news about Shell. I am pleased that you have a high regard for the company. I can tell you that many current and former employees of Shell in African nations e.g. Ethiopia, and in Malaysia, have a strikingly different opinion. Several hundred are suing Shell for unlawful deductions from Shell pension funds. As to carrying out research, we decide on what stories to pursue. This seems reasonable since it is our website. If you want to speak out on behalf of Shell you are very welcome to do so either on Live Chat (as you are doing) or by supplying articles for publication. If you want to put in the effort, we will publish your Shell related articles on an unedited basis provided they are to the same standard as your previous contributions. The same invitation extends to Shell or anyone who has informed intelligible comment to make about Shell. I have never spoken out in any depth regarding Shell benefit packages. I will leave that to the former Shell executive Paddy Briggs who has a much greater knowledge than me in such matters.
: Ok Donovan - do some research and post how Shells benefit package compares to others. I have done this and can tell you that is is in the top 5 percent of the globe. Do some research and see how well our poor employess are paid. Do some research and see how Shell takes care of its people when there is a natural disaster tha impacts them, Employee assistance surpassed by none. You post a very distorted view of Shell and you know it. Ask people who leave Exxon, Lyondell, Dow, Dupont, Chevron, Total, etc why they left - Benefits and values. Do your research.
: #36 Ali Zachari What a joke you are. You would be lucky if Shell was to invest in your country. There are many quality operators and Shell is one of them. If I had a vote, I do not, we would never invest a single penny in your country. Do some research on the web, outside this site where the lenses are so clouded you will never get a real picture of the company Shell is.
: So you do post the good articles on Shell, but where is your editorial comment praising shell for its top of the league access to annual reports? For an evil company with no ethics, as you claim, one would not excpect such transparency eh. I can tell you that as an ee, I would rather work for no one else. When we have a choice to make on startup up facilities, we will never compromise our values. We are expected to do it right, and we always strive to. Get a grip, there are operators out there who knowingly violate permits and mis manage emissions, not Shell. If you only knew the internal standard we are held to as unit operators, you would change your tune.
Live Chat RSS Feed