Dog groomers at battle: Businesswoman sues rival over ‘Wash Wiggle and Wag’ title and ‘vicious’ smear marketing campaign after her £90,000-a-year agency went bust – regardless of choose warning them towards pricey authorized battle

A dog groomer who says her £90,000-a-year business went bust because of interference from a rival is locked in a High Court fight with her over rights to the name ‘Wash Wiggle and Wag’.

Laura Thurgood and Danielle Laight are battling in court over who is allowed to use the distinctive title for their competing dog grooming businesses in the West Midlands.

Ms Thurgood claims the ‘Wash Wiggle and Wag’ name is hers and that her former colleague unfairly used it when they parted ways, ‘destroying’ her business amid allegations of a ‘vicious’ online smear campaign.

The pair are now locked in a legal dogfight, with a judge considering Ms Thurgood’s claim for damages for the loss of her sunken business.

Ms Thurgood’s barrister Ian Silcock told Judge David Stone that she set up her thriving dog grooming business under the ‘Wash Wiggle and Wag’ name in 2018.

She 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.

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, she says.

Ms Laight insists the arrangement was a partnership, London’s High Court was told.

Ms Thurgood says her business began to take off over the next two years as Wash Wiggle and Wag’s reputation took root in the community, pulling in more than 700 clients, with Ms Laight carrying out about 2,600 grooming sessions for the firm.

But in May 2020, the two women’s working relationship fell apart when Ms Laight left a letter in Ms Thurgood’s van terminating the arrangement.

Mr Silcock said that, after that, the ‘Wash Wiggle and Wag’ name was pinched by Ms Laight for her own business.

Ms Thurgood also claims she was ‘viciously’ libelled by her former working partner on Instagram, Facebook and in a series of texts which accused her grooming of having ‘resulted in a number of dogs being injured and their owners incurring large bills from vets to treat the injured dogs’.

But 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 accusations would be greater than any potential benefit to Ms Thurgood should she win.

Ms Thurgood claims Ms Laight, 28, has damaged the ‘goodwill’ associated with her company and stolen a name which had been uniquely associated with her business profile.

But giving evidence at London’s High Court last week, Ms Laight insisted she had every right to use the name, denying claims of ‘misrepresentation’.

Getting the case under way, the judge Mr Stone noted: ‘Ms Laight doesn’t suggest that she hasn’t used the name “Wash Wiggle and Wag”, but says that’s not misrepresentation.’

Ms Laight told the court: ‘My argument is that I began using the name “Wash Wiggle and Wag” independently.’

She said she had worked on her own as a groomer for two years before linking up with Ms Thurgood.

Ms Laight added: ‘Before working with the claimant I had already built up a reputable grooming business at home.

‘I wanted more experience so I started working with the claimant, but I was always very clear with the claimant that I would ultimately want to work on my own.

‘They would have understood that while working with them I would still be working at home separately, and independently offering different services.

‘I acknowledge that the name was associated with the claimant when we worked together, but I adopted that name when working independently as a self-employed contractor.’

She also told the court that Ms Thurgood’s business had presented a confusing image over its name as ‘it was trading under three different names including “Doggy Style”.’

Mr Silcock said Ms Thurgood’s company had given her a van to use for valeting sessions which had the name ‘Wash Wiggle and Wag’ on the side of it.

Ms Laight replied that her bosses had told her to use the brand name ‘Scruffy 2 Fluffy’ with customers and not the disputed name.

She accepted that she had contacted some of the claimant’s regular customers before they parted ways, but insisted: ‘Contact was made with customers who were expecting me to turn up that week.

‘I felt it was my reasonability to let them know that I would not be providing services under the name, “Scruffy 2 Fluffy”.’

Mr Silcock asked her: ‘When they found out what you were doing they demanded the van back, didn’t they?’

But Ms Laight denied that, adding: ‘The dogs I was doing independently would not be involved in the claimant’s business because I was dog grooming for two years before.’

At an earlier hearing, Mr Silcock had claimed the alleged defamatory publications were the beginning of the end for Ms Thurgood’s dog grooming service, which was driven out of business.

He said she would be claiming damages for the loss of profits, pointing out that Ms Thurgood had projected an annual turnover of about £90,000 going forward.

Ms Thurgood’s claim had been for passing off, defamation, malicious falsehood and breach of database rights, but is now proceeding as a passing off claim alone.

One of the issues is whether Ms Thurgood and Ms Laight were partners in business, with Ms Laight telling the judge it had been discussed but never put into writing.

After a day in court, Judge Stone reserved his ruling in the case, which has already run up five-figure legal costs.