Case No. IP-2020-000140

52.Domino argued that any construction of clauses 4.1 and 4.2 and of Domino’s Release Commitment which sought to impose a continuing obligation on it to exploit the Masters was untenable in the light of the wording of the contract and its clear and ordinary meaning. It was submitted that “release” describes a commercial launch rather than any kind of continuing exploitation thereafter and that this would have been obvious to the parties and their lawyers at the time they concluded the 2001 Agreement. During submissions, Mr Richards made clear that Domino’s position was that the obligation to release required a ‘genuine commercial release’; it could not be satisfied by a momentary release and subsequent withdrawal, a suggestion that he described as a ‘strawman’. A ‘genuine commercial release’ would not, however, involve an obligation to continue to exploit subsequently.53.Mr Richards relied on