Case No. EWHC-1798-(IPEC)

or any of them?(iv)In the light of the above, does the use by the Defendants of the Defendants’ Signs or any of them amount to a misrepresentation that the Defendants’ live music events, merchandising, music sales and associated goods and services are the goods and services of the First Claimant (alternatively the Claimants together) or are otherwise associated or connected with or authorised by the First Claimant (alternatively the Claimants together)?(v)Has any misrepresentation made by the Defendants damaged or is it likely to damage any goodwill found owned by the AWEL (alternatively AWEL and Mr Williams together)?Trade mark invalidity(vi)Was the application for the UK TM made in bad faith?(vii)In light of the findings on passing off and bad faith, is the UK TM invalid?General(viii)If passing off is shown, were the acts of passing off flagrant and/or calculated to benefit the Defendants in excess of the likely damages?35.The term ‘Defendants’ Signs’ was not defined in the list of issues attached to the order made following the CMC. 36.It may be intended to refer back to the term the Amended Particulars of Claim where it is defined at paragraph 34 as “… the sign “the Rubettes” or similar names /devices featuring the word “Rubettes” (including the Logo referred to at sub-paragraph 34(i) below).”37.The Claimants’ skeleton argument is rather clearer in identifying the issue of concern to the Claimants. Paragraph 8 describes the Defendants’ Signs. It explains that Mr Clarke “started his own band, trading as “the Rubettes” and using the following logo (“the Logo” and together “the Defendants’ Signs”)”:38.Paragraph 10 of the skeleton argument explains that the Claimants’ concern is that the Defendants “have played together as “the Rubettes” and under the Defendants Signs and continue to do so”.