Case No. EWHC-1798-(IPEC)

34.The issues identified at the CMC for trial were:Passing off(i)When did the Defendants commence the acts complained of (‘the relevant date’)?(ii)At the relevant date, was AWEL (or AWEL and Mr Williams together) the owner(s) of goodwill associated with the Rubettes Names or any of them?(iii)At the relevant date, were the Defendants or any of them the owners of any goodwill associated with the Defendants’ Signs 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