Flagrancy
251.Mr Smith submitted that it would be efficient when considering the evidence as a whole in order to make findings as to liability to consider whether certain facts which are pleaded as the factual basis for an award of additional damages pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Intellectual Property (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2006 are made out in the evidence. I agreed to do so, and my conclusions are below. However, this is an issue which goes to remedies and I make no finding as to whether or not the conduct of the Defendants or any of them meets the appropriate legal test.252.The facts asserted by the Claimants to be relevant are:(i)
- OVERVIEW
- PROCEDURAL HISTORY
- THE CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL
- THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
- THE ISSUES FOR TRIAL
- the Defendants’ Signs
- COMMENTS ON THE EVIDENCE AND THE WITNESSES
- Credit Suisse
- Singh v Jhutti
- Painter v Hutchison
- THE RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
- Reckitt & Colman v Borden
- Goodwill
- McAlpine
- IRC v Mullers & Co Margarine
- The ownership of goodwill
- Byford v Oliver
- Burchell
- Ad-Lib Club Ltd v Granville
- Star Industrial Co Ltd v Yap Kwee Kor
- Sutherland v V2 Music
- Dent v Turpin
- Parker & Son (Reading) Ltd v Parker
- Starbucks (HK) Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Band
- Misrepresentation / damage
- Phones 4U
- Red Bull GmbH v Sun Mark Ltd and Sea Air & Land Forwarding Ltd
- Red Bull
- THE PRINCIPAL SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL
- The Claimants’ submissions
- The 1994 Agreements
- The Defendants’ submissions
- Ownership of goodwill – the relevant facts and assessment
- owned by Rubettes 1976 Limited
- Ultraframe v Fielding
- Claimants
- Defendants
- Facts
- www.therubettes.co.uk
- British Telecommunications Plc v One in a Million Ltd
- TRADE MARK ISSUES
- Facts and evidence
- Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky
- Timing and Mr Williams’ knowledge
- Mr Clarke’s motivations for registering the trade mark
- The Rubettes
- John Richardson
- Michael Clarke
- Registered Trademark & Copyright Owner
- Subject:
- RE: THE RUBETTES
- Mr Clarke’s belief that Mr Williams was retiring and disbanding the band
- Flagrancy
- Up until early March 2018, Mr Clarke did not know or care how much AWEL was charging for gigs.
- Mr Clarke found out in about March 2018 that some of the European gigs were more lucrative than he previously believed.
- Mr Clarke asked for more money. Mr Williams agreed to pay a higher appearance fee. Mr Clarke wanted more.
- On 1 July 2018, Mr Williams sent an email to Mr Clarke sacking him from the band.
- Shortly after the 1 July email, Mr Clarke began a clandestine course of conduct to put together a “Rubettes” band without Mr Williams and invited Mr Richardson and Mr Etherington to join. They accepted.
- The Defendants continued to play with Mr Williams until September. They did not tell him what they were planning. As soon as he was out of the country, they started putting their plans into action.
- The Defendants have gained increased opportunities from their passing off which they would not have had if they had started off under a new name, such as connections with promotors and venues they wouldn’t otherwise have got.
- The position of Mr Etherington
- CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY
- Rahbarpoor & Anor v Suliman & Ors