The UK toy industry
The UK toy industry
The UK’s toy market is one of the largest in the world. NPD, which the parties agree is the authoritative source of market research in the toy industry, valued the UK toy market at £3.4bn in 2017. The toy experts broadly agree on the characteristics of the market. Two common themes emerge from their evidence.
The first is that the toy industry is a fashion industry. While there are established brands that enjoy consistent consumer loyalty, the success of new products is determined by consumer trends, and the fickle tastes of children cause the market to be volatile. It is thus difficult to predict whether a new toy will be successful. The experts agreed that having an innovative product was critical, although that alone was not a guarantee of success. It was common ground that most new toys fail, and the majority of new toys launched in Europe do not last in the market for more than a year. That gives rise to a “close-out” industry of wholesalers (such as Singleton) and retailers, who specialise in purchasing and re-selling underperforming stock at discount prices.
The second theme is the competitiveness of the market. A large number of manufacturers compete by offering differentiated and innovative products. The three largest manufacturers, Lego, Hasbro, and Mattel, had a combined market share on the overall toys market of only 28% in 2017.
For the purposes of its data collection in the toy market, NPD segments toys into supercategories, segments and subsegments, classes, and subclasses, allowing the performance of individual products to be measured. The present case concerns the “dolls” supercategory. That supercategory is then divided into four segments as set out in the table below: nurturing dolls and accessories (nurturing dolls), fashion dolls/accessories and role play (fashion dolls), playset dolls and accessories (playset dolls), and large dolls and accessories/furniture (large dolls). The playset dolls segment is divided into two classes: playset dolls and collectibles, and playset doll accessories. Both LOL Surprise and Worldeez fell within the playset dolls and collectibles class, shown in bold in the table.
- 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)