Case No. IP-2021-000046

213.As Mr Killi has explained in his evidence, D3 is the parent company of Killis and he describes it as a passive holding company. However, it had previously operated the distribution business which is now operated through Killis, until the end of its financial year on 31 March 2019. After this date, Killis took over and D3 ceased to trade. I accept this evidence, as I have nothing to gainsay it.214.The exclusive distribution agreement between the ICE Group and Killis was, therefore, actually entered into with D3 on 1 March 2019, and D3 placed its first purchase order on 4 March 2019 for three containers of ICE branded cleaning equipment from the ICE Group production factory in Guangdong, China. It is not clear from that witness statement, and this was not really explored by Ms Messenger in cross-examination, whether the products resulting from that order were imported by D3 before 31 March 2019, or after, by which time Killis had taken over the distribution business. It is for C to satisfy me that D3 carried out any of the acts of infringement and they have not done so on to the civil standard. It seems to me more likely than not that by the time the 4 March 2019 order was fulfilled and the goods were ready to be imported into the UK, Killis was the entity which imported and then offered for sale or rent and sold or rented those products.215.In terms of pursuing D3 on a quia timet basis, there is no evidence before me that D3 is likely to take on a trading role again. It fulfils a parent company role to Killis and at least one other group company.216.For those reasons I dismiss the infringement claim against D3.