Claim No: IP-2022-000053 - [2025] EWHC 1827 (IPEC)
Fecha: 24-Jul-2025
Pleading Points
Pleading Points
The Claimants ran several pleading points which I do not consider advance matters. I therefore deal with them briefly. It was said in relation to certain paragraphs in the Defences filed by the Defendants that the denials were inappropriate, and I should therefore consider those denials in fact to be admissions. This was put to me on the basis of CPR 16.5 which provides:
“(1) In the defence, the defendant must deal with every allegation in the particulars of claim, stating—
(a) which of the allegations are denied;
(b) which allegations they are unable to admit or deny, but which they require the claimant to prove; and
(c) which allegations they admit.
(2) Where the defendant denies an allegation—
(a) they must state their reasons for doing so; and
(b) if they intend to put forward a different version of events from that given by the claimant, they must state their own version.
(3) If a defendant—
(a) fails to deal with an allegation; but
(b) sets out in the defence the nature of their case in relation to the issue to which that allegation is relevant,
the claimant is required to prove the allegation.
…
(5) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), a defendant who fails to deal with an allegation shall be taken to admit that allegation.”
Whilst appropriate pleadings are to be encouraged, the Defendants in this case had clearly joined issue with the Claimants’ claims, particularly in relation to the Second Label and Third Label (which they clearly said did not infringe) and it would have been clear to the Claimants what issues they needed to prove. Further, all three Defendants have put forward their own version of events – that the labels were designed by a third party, and that none of the Defendants knew of Ms Martin’s work, nor that the First Label has some similarities to Ms Martin’s work, until Ms Martin pointed that out. I therefore did not find this discussion helpful, particularly in circumstances where GM Drinks and Mr Patch were unrepresented. I have addressed below the specific instances where this was said to arise.
- Heading
- David Stone (sitting as Deputy High Court Judge)
- Section 2
- Procedural Matters
- Confidentiality
- Pleading Points
- List of Issues
- Witnesses
- Examples of the Allegedly Infringing Products
- Background Facts
- Mr Patch’s Position
- Copyright Subsistence
- The Law
- The First Label
- The Second Label
- Section 16
- Section 17
- The Third Label
- Acts of Infringement
- Conclusions on Copyright Infringement
- Moral Rights Infringement
- Passing Off
- The law
- Goodwill
- Misrepresentation
- Damage
- Knowledge and Correspondence
- Joint Tortfeasorship
- Joint tortfeasorship for copyright infringement – pre-notification
- Joint tortfeasorship for copyright infringement – post-notification
- Joint tortfeasorship for passing off – pre-notification
- Joint tortfeasorship for passing off – post-notification
- Flagrancy
- Summary
- Next steps