THE EVIDENCE OF FACT
THE EVIDENCE OF FACT
Cabo’s witnesses of fact
Cabo’s main witnesses were Mr and Mrs Michaelson and Mr and Mrs Cohen. These two couples were the founders of Cabo alongside two further individuals, Marc Sivner and Alexander Lazarus, who have since exited the company. The Michaelsons and Cohens are now the sole shareholders of Cabo; Mr Lazarus is, as discussed below, a witness for MGA; and Mr Sivner has not participated in these proceedings in any way. I will refer to the Michaelsons and Cohens in this judgment as the Cabo founders.
Marc Michaelson had been a director of a sports equipment business prior to founding Cabo. Within Cabo he contributed to the product design of Worldeez and led the marketing of the product. Mr Michaelson provided five witness statements, giving extensive evidence about the background to the creation of Cabo, the design and launch of the Worldeez brand, MGA’s intervention in May 2017 and the retailer response, Cabo’s efforts to sell Worldeez despite the dispute with MGA, and the eventual demise of both the product and Cabo’s business. He was cross-examined on that evidence over one and a half days (with the evidence of Mr Hunter, one of MGA’s witnesses, interposed briefly on the second morning). His evidence was unfortunately very defensive, and evasive on numerous points. It was apparent that his answers were designed to advance Cabo’s case, even when those answers were inconsistent with the contemporaneous documentation or otherwise implausible. It was also apparent that he did not have a firm grasp of the details of Cabo’s business, including on points covered in his witness statements. I do not regard him as a reliable witness.
Hayley Michaelson is married to Mr Michaelson and is the sister of Lauren Cohen. She had a degree in Childhood Studies and experience working with children, and she and Mrs Cohen had the initial idea for the Worldeez toy, based on observing their own children’s interest in particular toys. Within Cabo, Mrs Michaelson was principally responsible for the Worldeez product design, alongside Cabo’s designer Helder Olivier. She provided two witness statements addressing mainly that issue, and was cross-examined for around half a day. She was a frank and straightforward witness, who sought to answer questions directly. However, while her passionate belief in the prospects of success of the Worldeez brand was evidently sincere, she came across as rather naïve regarding the commercial challenges faced by a startup toy company.
Johnny Cohen had previously operated multiple successive businesses selling heat packs, several of which had been liquidated with significant outstanding unsecured liabilities. His role in Cabo was mainlyto oversee the manufacturing and import of Worldeez products. He was also (albeit to a more limited extent) involved with Cabo’s finances, product design and marketing. Mr Cohen provided five witness statements, mainly addressing the design of the Worldeez toy, the manufacturing process, marketing, costs and sales projections, and the reaction to MGA’s threats, as well as his initial discussions on international sales and licensing. His cross-examination took most of a day. He was another very defensive and sometimes combative witness, whose optimism regarding the success which he considered Worldeez would have enjoyed obscured a realistic assessment of the commercial position. He was very willing to blame others for problems, including internal logistical and administrative issues, and reluctant to take responsibility for matters that had been within his control. As with Mr Michaelson, I do not regard him as a reliable witness.
Lauren Cohen is married to Mr Cohen. She practised as a solicitor before founding Cabo, and along with Mrs Michaelson her main responsibility was the design of the Worldeez products. She provided a very short witness statement addressing the alleged similarities between the Worldeez globe and LOL Surprise, and was cross-examined only very briefly. Her evidence was undoubtedly sincere, but (as with the evidence of the other Cabo founders) was coloured by her optimism in the likely success of the product.
Nick Mowbray is the co-founder of Zuru Toys, which has marketed a number of commercially successful toys including “5 Surprise Mini Brands”. He provided one short witness statement and was cross-examined remotely from New Zealand for around two hours. His evidence addressed, in particular, his knowledge of and interactions with MGA and Mr Larian, his experience of bringing a successful toy to the market, and his views on the likely commercial success of Worldeez (although he was called as a witness of fact, rather than a toy industry expert). I have no reason to doubt that his views were honestly held. Equally, however, it was clear that he and Mr Larian were longstanding rivals, and that he was keen to support Cabo as having been a small new entrant to the toy business and potential challenger to MGA. I do not, therefore, consider his evidence to have been entirely objective.
Richard Spector is the solicitor at Spector Constant & Williams with primary conduct of the case for Cabo. He provided a very short witness statement describing a brief exchange of messages on the social media platform LinkedIn, between himself and Kevin Macnab, the former president of TRU International, in which Mr Macnab said that he had no recollection of speaking to Mr Larian about Worldeez in 2017, and did not want to become involved in the dispute between Cabo and MGA. Mr Spector was not cross-examined at the trial.
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- THE EVIDENCE OF FACT
- MGA’s witnesses of fact
- Mr Larian’s breaches of purdah
- THE EXPERT EVIDENCE
- The economic and valuation experts: preliminary comments
- Assessment of the economic and valuation evidence
- The Decision Tree Model (DTM)
- ISSUES
- FACTUAL BACKGROUND
- The UK toy industry
- Table 1: NPD dolls classifications
- MGA and LOL Surprise
- Section 14
- The founding of Cabo and development of Worldeez
- Section 16
- The initial marketing of Worldeez
- Discussions with the launch retailers
- The Entertainer
- Toys R Us
- Smyths
- Other retailers
- MGA’s intervention
- Contacts with Cabo and Singleton
- The Entertainer
- Toys R Us
- Smyths
- B&M and other retailers
- AB Gee
- Worldeez repackaging and relaunch
- Launch of Worldeez globe in B&M
- Decline in B&M sales after August 2017
- Sales to other retailers
- Licensing and international distribution
- Nickelodeon advertising
- Demise of Cabo
- PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
- ABUSE OF DOMINANCE CLAIM
- The relevant market definition
- The parties’ submissions
- Mr Colley’s approach
- Mr Parker’s approach
- Section 44
- Conclusions on market definition
- Whether MGA was dominant on the relevant market
- The parties’ submissions
- Table 2: 2017 market shares for Colley and Parker markets (%)
- Table 3: Parker market share estimates for 2018–19 (%)
- Table 4: 2017 market shares for extended Colley market (%)
- Market shares
- Figure 1: Colley diagram of 2017 MGA and competitor market shares
- Competition from products outside the relevant market
- Barriers to entry and expansion
- Countervailing buyer power
- MGA’s conduct
- Conclusions on dominance
- Whether MGA’s conduct amounted to an abuse
- The parties’ submissions
- The overall exclusionary campaign
- MGA’s “response to commercial attack” argument
- MGA’s passing off defence
- Section 63
- Conclusion on abuse of dominance
- UNLAWFUL AGREEMENTS CLAIM
- Agreements with the toy traders
- Discussion and conclusions
- Anticompetitive object or effect
- Discussion and conclusions
- Exemption under the VBER
- Scope of the VBER
- Market share threshold
- Excluded restrictions
- Conclusion on the VBER
- Exemption under s. 9 / Article 101(3)
- Conclusion on the unlawful agreements claim
- PATENT THREATS CLAIM
- Threats of patent infringement proceedings
- The parties’ submissions
- Discussion
- “Person aggrieved”
- Conclusion on the patent threats claim
- CAUSATION AND QUANTUM
- Legal principles
- Quantification of the loss
- The approach to claims for lost profits
- Conclusions on the overarching approach
- Causative effect of MGA’s conduct
- Actionable damage and causation: Cabo’s heads of loss
- Whether Cabo would have traded profitably in the counterfactual case
- Product quality
- Section 92
- Marketing campaign
- Retailer support
- Business plan/financial projections
- Inventory management
- Working capital
- Toy expert evidence on commercial success
- Breakeven analysis
- Table 5: Volumes and working capital required to break even in 2017
- International sales
- Conclusions on whether Cabo would have traded profitably
- The parties’ quantum models
- Mr Colley’s quantum models
- Table 6: Cabo calculations of losses (£m)
- Assessment of Mr Colley’s models
- Mr Parker’s quantum models
- Table 7: MGA calculations of losses (£)
- Assessment of Mr Parker’s significant success model
- Table 8: Loss calculation for significant success model, comparing MGA and Cabo cost stacks (£)
- Assessment of Mr Parker’s moderate success model
- Figure 2: Parker moderate success model: average monthly revenue (£)
- Conclusions on the quantum models
- DECLARATORY RELIEF
- Conclusions
![HP-2020-000016 - [2025] EWHC 1451 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)