Original Beauty Technology Company Ltd v G4K Fashion Ltd
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judge | Mr David Stone |
Judgment Date | 01 April 2021 |
Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 836 (Ch) |
Date | 01 April 2021 |
Docket Number | Claim No. IL 2018-000105 |
Court | Chancery Division |
[2021] EWHC 836 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
The Rolls Building
7 Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane
London
EC4A 1NL
Mr. David Stone
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
Claim No. IL 2018-000105
Ms. Anna Edwards-Stuart and Mr. David Ivison (instructed by Mono Law Solicitors) for the First and Second Claimants
Mr. Chris Aikens (instructed by Fieldfisher) for the Defendants
Approved Judgment
Mr David Stone (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge):
This is the form of order hearing in case number IL-2018-000105 in which I gave judgment on 24 February 2021 (“the Judgment”). In addition to passing off, that trial considered whether 20 garments produced by or on behalf of the Defendants infringed unregistered Community design rights (as they then were) (UCD) and United Kingdom unregistered design rights (UKUDR) in 20 garments designed by or on behalf of the Claimants (the Selected Garments).
In the Judgment, I found that seven of the 20 Selected Garments infringed both UCD and UKUDR and I found that 13 of the Selected Garments did not.
Mr Aikens, who appeared at the trial and appears before me today on behalf of the Defendants, seeks, amongst a range of orders (many of which are already agreed), an additional declaration that:
“The Defendants have not infringed the UKUDR or UCD subsisting in each of the designs referred to in the Court's judgment as C3, C7, C9, C17, C21, C47, C49, C63, C66, C77, C81, C93 and C102”.
That order is resisted by Ms Anna Edwards-Stuart and Mr David Ivison, who appear on behalf of the First and Second Claimants. The Third Claimant has gone into liquidation since the trial, and did not appear before me today.
Declarations of non-infringement are a discretionary remedy, the discretion being for the Court to exercise in circumstances where the declaration would “serve a useful purpose”....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Original Beauty Technology Company Ltd v G4K Fashion Ltd
...this damages inquiry. 6 A form of order hearing took place on 1 April 2021: I gave a short ex tempore judgment (which can be found at [2021] EWHC 836 (Ch)) rejecting the Defendants' request for declarations of non-infringement. An issue arose after the form of order hearing in relation to ......
-
Original Beauty Technology Company Ltd v G4K Fashion Ltd
...listed the account of profits/damages enquiry before me in October 2021. I gave a short ex tempore judgment (which can be found at [2021] EWHC 836 (Ch)) on the Defendants' request for declarations of non-infringement. An issue arose after the form of order hearing in relation to the variou......
-
Original Beauty Technology Company Ltd v G4K Fashion Ltd
...dealing with the remaining 71 garments which had not then been adjudicated. I gave a short ex tempore judgment (which can be found at [2021] EWHC 836 (Ch)) on the Defendants' request for declarations of non-infringement. An issue arose after the form of order hearing in relation to the var......
-
Original Beauty Technology Company Ltd v G4K Fashion Ltd
...not yet been adjudicated, and for an account of profits/damages enquiry. I gave a short ex tempore judgment (which can be found at [2021] EWHC 836 (Ch)) on the Defendants' request for declarations of non-infringement. I reserved costs, with reasons to be given later — those reasons can be ......