Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Halifax pays pounds 2m in dispute over name

Peter Rodgers
Friday 25 February 1994 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

HALIFAX Building Society has paid damages and costs understood to be about pounds 2m to Provident Financial as a result of a dispute over the use of the name Halifax, writes Peter Rodgers. .

Provident, based in Bradford, won an injunction 13 months ago preventing the building society launching a motor insurance sales drive under its own name.

Provident itself owns a profitably motor insurance specialist called Halifax Insurance, which was set up in 1965 and bought by the group in 1978. The case was due to go to full trial but the two parties settled out of court.

Under the agreement, Provident is selling the trademarks used by Halifax Insurance to the building society and accepting damages and costs.

It is renaming Halifax Insurance Provident Insurance from 1 March.

John van Kuffeler, Provident's chief executive, said the payment from Halifax would cover the costs of rebranding its own insurance products under the group name and avoid a legal conflict. 'We have received sufficient to take account of any future costs we are likely to have.'

Bottom Line, page 34

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in