Case No. IP-2021-000046

11.The Defendants deny that D1 has carried out any of the alleged infringing acts in the UK as alleged or at all, pleading that all importation, promotion, offer for sale and sale of products carrying D1’s marks set out above has been carried out by independent distributors such as Killis. 12.The Defendants admit that Killis has carried out the acts complained of. They defend the claim on the following grounds:i)The invalidity of C’s Trade Marks;ii)Pursuant to section 11(1) and/or section 11(1A) of the TMA (use of another registered trade mark and/or later registered trade mark);iii)Statutory acquiescence pursuant to section 48(1) TMA;iv)In respect of section 10(2) TMA infringement, that there is no likelihood of confusion as a result of the circumstances of the case;v)In respect of section 10(3) TMA infringement, that use of the signs complained of is not use so as to take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of C’s Trade Marks;vi)A denial that (a) there have been misrepresentations by the Defendants which have given rise to damage so as to amount to passing off and (b) there is any threat of such misrepresentations; andvii)Use was with due cause because of the long-standing use of D1’s ICE Word Mark and D1’s ICE Logo in the UK since about 2013.