Claim No: IL-2024-000036 - [2025] EWHC 2172 (Ch)
Chancery Division of the High Court

Claim No: IL-2024-000036 - [2025] EWHC 2172 (Ch)

Fecha: 22-Ago-2025

This Claim

This Claim

16.

I have set out above the high-level description of this claim taken from the Claim Form. It was accompanied by Particulars of Claim drafted by specialist counsel and signed under a Statement of Truth by Mrs Lish dated 22 March 2024. Having set out the history of the matter as alleged, the Particulars of Claim detail the acts of which complaint is made as follows (adopting, in italics, the headings used in the Particulars of Claim):

i)

Account and Payment of Unpaid Royalties: Mrs Lish says that under the terms of her arrangement with Northern Block, Northern Block was obliged to pay her 60% of the sums Northern Block received from the exploitation of “C’s Typefaces”. “C’s Typefaces” is defined in paragraph 14 of the Particulars of Claim as “[e]ach of the designs for the typefaces provided by [Mrs Lish] to [Northern Block]”. I will call this the Unpaid Royalties Claim;

ii)

Failure to Disclose and/or Account for Sublicence(s): This claim relates only to a typeface called Neusa Next. Mrs Lish says that the terms of the settlement of the Newcastle Claim require Northern Block to provide details of any sublicences to third parties of the Neusa Next typeface, and to account to her for 60% of the revenues from any such sublicences. Mrs Lish also says that Northern Block should not currently be offering the Neusa Next typeface to third parties. I will call this the Neusa Next Claim; and

iii)

Continuing Infringement by Offer of Typefaces Infringing C’s Typefaces: Mrs Lish says that contrary to the Defendants’ obligations following settlement of the Newcastle Claim, Northern Block has continued to infringe Mrs Lish’s copyright in four typefaces (Neusa, Tautz, Quiber and Stolzl), and the Cyrillic extensions of a further four typefaces (Knul, Loew Next, Oyko and Eund). I will call this the Infringements Claim.

17.

When asked, Mrs Lish’s counsel indicated (on instructions) that the claim is worth in the region of £300,000. The Defendants deny liability at all, but said that, at best, even if entirely successful, the claim is worth approximately £50,000.