Claim No: IP-2022-000086 - [2024] EWHC 1430 (IPEC)

As is usual in IPEC, the statements of case stand as evidence. I heard from a single witness from each party at trial:

Ms Gupta has worked within the Claimant’s group of companies since 2019, initially in the role of Head of Marketing in India. She became Global Head of Marketing in August 2021 responsible for the worldwide marketing resource of 22 staff, and moved to London as soon as the pandemic allowed her to, in February 2022, when she became employed by the Claimant company itself. In cross-examination she said that even before joining the London office, she was managing the London marketing team of around 12 people remotely from India. She said she was responsible for all aspects of the Claimant’s brands, including print and event marketing, outside marketing such as billboards and posters, social media and certain parts of the Claimant’s website, including blogs.

Mr Girdhar gave his evidence in his capacity as the Manager of D1 and a Partner of D2.

Both witnesses attended trial (Mr Girdhar remotely over video link) and were cross-examined. Mr Lomas commented that both were strong cheerleaders for their respective companies and products, but made clear that was not a criticism of either, and I accept both points. Both witnesses presented in court as entirely credible people who came to court to provide honest evidence to the best of their recollection and ability, in my judgment. Ms Gupta’s written evidence was problematic in a number of ways which she fairly accepted in cross-examination, particularly in relation to financial and other figures, as I will come on to describe, and so I am unable to accept much of the financial or quantitative information as reliable. It also suffered from a lack of support from documentary evidence which she fairly accepted could have been obtained or provided and disclosed, but was not, in ways which I will also describe. This means that much of her evidence, particularly that which came from other sources such that she could not directly attest to them, could not be validated or tested. Under Mr Lomas’s cross-examination she, again fairly, made a number of concessions and further admissions such that her oral evidence was quite different from what she presented in her witness statement, and overall less supportive of the Claimant’s case. Accordingly although I accept Ms Gupta as an honest and credible witness and one who gave reliable evidence on matters within her own direct knowledge, much of the evidence she puts before the Court is not reliable. In contrast, Mr Girdhar’s oral evidence was entirely consistent with his written evidence, and he was really unshaken in cross-examination. I am satisfied it was both credible and reliable.