Case No. IP-2015-000152

20.The following issues for trial were identified by HHJ Hacon in an order dated 5 April 2016 following a case management conference on 1 February 2016:i)Whether the Defendant has used in the course of trade a sign which is identical to the Trade Mark in relation to goods similar to those for which the Trade Mark is registered; ii)Whether the Defendant has used in the course of trade a sign which is similar to the Trade Mark in relation to goods which are identical or similar to those for which the Trade Mark is registered;iii)Whether the Trade Mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom;iv)Whether the Defendant has used in the course of trade a sign in relation to the goods which is identical or similar to the Trade Mark and the use of the sign, being without due cause, takes advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the Trade Mark;v)Whether the Claimants’ business has goodwill in England and Wales associated with the Sign;vi)Whether the Defendant has used the Sign in a manner which constitutes a misrepresentation; andvii)Whether the Claimants have suffered damages as a consequence of any misrepresentation by the Defendants.21.The parties agree that consideration of the section 10(2) TMA infringement claim should properly also include consideration of the likelihood of confusion, so I will redraw issues (i) and (ii) slightly differently, as follows:(i)(a) Is there use by the Defendant of a sign identical with, or similar to the Trade Mark? (i)(b) Is that use in the course of trade? (i)(c) Is that use in relation to goods and services which are identical or similar to those for which the Trade Mark is registered? (ii) If so, does there exist a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public?22.It does not appear to be disputed that any use by the Defendant of the sign complained of was: (i) use in the United Kingdom; and (ii) without the consent of the Claimants. Certainly the Defendant has not argued otherwise.23.Finally, no order has been made for a split trial. The parties asked me to hear submissions about quantum, and I agreed to do so. Accordingly I am prepared to deal with both liability and quantum, if necessary, in this judgment.24.Mr Muir Wood appears for the Claimants and Mr Small for the Defendant. I thank them for their helpful skeleton arguments and skilful submissions.