1-800 Flowers Inc. v Phonenames Ltd
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 18 May 2001 |
Neutral Citation | [2001] EWCA Civ 721 |
Date | 18 May 2001 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Buxton and Lord Justice Jonathan Parker.
Costs - jurisdiction to assess costs summarily - not to be used to introduce scale of judicial tariffs for different categories of case
The jurisdiction to assess costs summarily was not to be used as a vehicle for the introduction of a scale of judicial tariffs for different categories of case.
The Court of Appeal so stated, inter alia, in a reserved judgment when dismissing the appeal of 1-800 Flowers Inc and allowing the cross-appeal of Phonenames Ltd from an order of Mr Justice Jacob in a trade mark dispute in the Chancery Division on December 20, 1999 when he summarily assessed Phonenames' costs under Part 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules at Pounds 10,000.
Mr Geoffrey Hobbs, QC and Miss Emma Himsworth for 1-800 Flowers; Mr Mark Platts-Mills, QC and Mr James Abrahams for Phonenames.
LORD JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER, having dismissed the appeal said on the cross-appeal that it was of the essence of a summary assessment of costs that the court should focus on the detailed breakdown of costs actually incurred by the party in question as shown in its statement of costs; and that it should carry out the assessment by reference to the items appearing in that statement. In so doing the court might find it helpful to draw to a greater or lesser extent on its own experience of summary assessment of costs in what it considered to be comparable cases.
Equally, having dealt with the costs by reference to the detailed items in the statement of costs which was before it, the court might find it helpful to look at the total sum at which it had arrived in order to see whether that sum fell within the bounds of what it considered reasonable and proportionate.
If the court considered the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weir Warman Ltd v Research & Development Pty Ltd
...be unnecessarily confusing and restrictive as well as not in the interest of the public or the trade: at [113]. 800-Flowers Trade Mark [2002] FSR 12 (folld) Al Bassam Trade Mark [1995] RPC 511 (refd) Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV [2003] RPC 717 (refd) Blanchard v Hill (1742) 2 ATK 484......
-
Hotel Cipriani SRL and Others v Fred 250 Ltd (formerly known as Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd and Others
...that the correct approach to this question is that laid down in Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters [2001] FSR 20 at [12]-[20], 1–800 Flowers v Phonenames [2001] EWCA Civ 721, [2002] FSR 12 at [136]-[139] and Case C-324/09 L'Oréal SA v eBay International AG [2011] ECR-I 0000, [2011] ETMR 52......
- Euromarket Designs Inc. v Peters and Crate & Barrel Ltd
-
Dearlove (Richard) v Combs (Sean)
...law, publication on a website may well amount to a universal publication, but I am not concerned with that.” 23 On appeal (reported at [2001] EWCA Civ 721; [2002] FSR 12) Buxton LJ expressed some concern that use of a trade mark placed on the Internet at a location outside the UK may const......
-
Intellectual Property Law
...owner and what the reader will understand if he accesses the site. 17.21 The English Court of Appeal affirmed Jacob J”s decision (see [2002] FSR 12). But Buxton LJ proposed another approach to this issue. According to him, it was not enough for a trade mark proprietor to put up his trade ma......