Gladness (also known as Tumi) Jukic v British Broadcasting Corporation & Anor
| Judge | Mr Justice Thompsell |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] EWHC 221 (Ch) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Court | Intellectual Property Enterprise Court |
| Counsel | Ms Ashton Chantrielle |
| Date | 10 February 2025 |
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 221 (Ch)
Case No: IL-2024-000032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
7 Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane, London,
EC4A 1NL
Date: 10 February 2025
Before:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE THOMPSELL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GLADNESS (ALSO KNOWN AS TUMI) JUKIC Claimant
and
(1) BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION
(2) WALL TO WALL MEDIA LIMITED Defendants
The Claimant did not appear and was not represented
Ms Ashton Chantrielle, instructed by Allen Overy Shearman Sterling LLP for the Defendants
Hearing date: 17 December 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Approved Judgment:
Mr Justice Thompsell
Jukic v The BBC and another
Page 2
Mr Justice Thompsell:
1. INTRODUCTION
1. Gladness Jukic (also known as Tumi Jukic) (“Ms Jukic”) considers that she has
been robbed by the First Defendant, the British Broadcasting Corporation (the
“BBC”) and the Second Defendant, Wall to Wall Media Limited (“W2W”), a
production company, independent of the BBC. She considers that they copied,
without permission and without paying her, her intellectual property in a
concept and format for a reality TV series and turned this into a successful series
(which I shall refer to as the “Glow Up Show”) that has been running for six
seasons on BBC3 under the title “Glow Up: Britain’s Next Make-Up Star”. She
complains further that the BBC has tried to cover up its wrongdoing with further
wrongful acts, including destroying evidence and hacking her computer, giving
rise (she argues) to claims for breach of the Protection from Harassment Act
1997 (“PHA 1997”) and the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (“CMA 1990”).
2. The BBC and W2W strongly deny these claims.
3. These proceedings, and related trademark cancellation proceedings between Ms
Jukic and W2W’s related company, Warner Bros Entertainment, Inc. (“Warner
Bros.”), have had a long procedural history, but it is not necessary to cite all of
this. However, it is relevant to mention that Warner Bros. has been successful
against Ms Jukic in relation to two cancellation actions which were the subject
of a statutory appeal under the Trade Marks Act 1994 (the “TMA 1994”).
Warner Bros., as the owner of the registered trademark relating to the words
“Glow-up” successfully challenged later trademarks registered by Ms Jukic
relating to the words “glowup: britain’s [sic] next make-up star” leading to the
cancellation of those trademarks. These trademarks had been registered at a time
after the BBC has launched its series of programmes with that name. Ms Jukic
appealed against the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks at the Intellectual
Property Office (“IPO”) upholding this challenge and her appeal was dismissed.
This had the effect that her registered trademarks were void ab initio (that is
with effect from the date on which they were purportedly registered).
Accordingly it is now settled as a matter of judicial finding that Ms Jukic cannot
base any action against the BBC or W2W based on breach of trademarks.
4. The matters which were before me relate to applications made by the parties as
follows:
5. The first is an application made by Ms Jukic dated 24 May 2024 asking for
summary judgment pursuant to CPR rule 24.3 (the “Claimant’s Summary
Judgment Application”).
6. The second is an application made on behalf of the Defendants dated 28 June
2024 asking for the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim to be struck out as against
each Defendant pursuant to CPR rule 3.4(2)(a),(b) and/or (c) (the “Defendants’
Strike-Out Application”) and/or that the claim is summarily dismissed and
summary judgment is entered for the Defendants pursuant to CPR rule 24.3
because the Claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the Particulars of
Claim and there is no other reason for the case to be disposed of at trial (the
Approved Judgment:
Mr Justice Thompsell
Jukic v The BBC and another
Page 3
“Defendants’ Summary Judgment Application”) and seeking an award of
costs of the claim and of the application (the “Defendants’ Costs
Application”).
7. As all these applications, and the defences to each of them, turn on essentially
the same facts and evidential basis, it was appropriate that they be heard
together.
2. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE HEARING
8. Despite strenuous efforts being made by both the Defendants and the court to
contact Ms Jukic, and including a warning made by the Defendants that they
would seek to go ahead with the hearing if she did not attend, she did not reply
to any of the communications made to her relating to the hearing to say whether
she would attend, and if not, giving any reason why she would not attend. She
has not asked for any adjournment of the hearing, since the hearing date was
fixed on 10 October 2024.
9. Her behaviour in this regard echoes that relating to the appeal in relation to the
trademark matter discussed above, where again she did not attend the hearing.
In that case she did give reasons, but these reasons were adjudged by Jonathan
Richards J not to amount to adequate reasons to delay the hearing. At [31] of
his judgment he explained that he had been persuaded to hear the appeal even
though Ms Jukic was not in attendance. He referred to Leave.EU Group Limited
& another v Information Commissioner [2022] EWCA Civ 109, [2022] 1 WLR
1909, as indicating that the court had an inherent jurisdiction to hear the appeal
in the absence of Ms Jukic.
10. Ms Jukic’s failure to engage with this hearing, having set matters in motion both
by her original claim and by her Summary Judgment Application appears at
present to amount to a gross discourtesy both to the Defendants and to the court.
11. It appears that she may have moved house. It is doubtful that this has led to her
not receiving papers from the court or from the Defendants since attempts were
made to contact her also using the email and telephone details she had left with
the court. If she has also changed her email address and telephone and has not
updated the details filed with the court, this also appears at present to be a gross
discourtesy and she has only herself to blame if she is not receiving
communications relating to the case which she commenced.
12. It is possible that there may be an innocent explanation for what appears to be
an egregious failure to act properly in her dealings with the court, for example
if she has suffered an accident which has made it impossible for her to
communicate. In the absence of any such explanation, however, I have
considered that I should proceed with this hearing in the absence of Ms Jukic.
13. This is a matter within the court's discretion under its general powers of
management in CPR rule 3.1, and specifically under CPR rule 23.11. Like all
discretions this must be used in pursuit of the overriding objective (to deal with
a case justly and at a proportionate cost). In this case, in the absence of any
excuse, or application for adjournment from Ms Jukic, and considering both the
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting