Representation and Witnesses
Representation and Witnesses:
I have had the benefit of written and oral submissions from Mr Marshall (instructed by Briffa LLP (“Briffa”)) for the Claimants and Dr Muir Wood for the Defendants (instructed by JP Mitchell LLP). I am grateful to both of them and have considered their submissions carefully and taken them into account even if I do not set out every argument or submission made.
At the outset of this trial, I refused permission for the Claimants to rely on some very late additional disclosure provided to the Defendants after exchange of skeleton arguments for the reasons I gave at the time. This is an IPEC trial, and it is necessary for the court to take a robust approach to such very late disclosure having regard to CPR 63.23 and CPR PD 29.
- Heading
- Master Kaye Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
- Representation and Witnesses
- Witnesses
- Trade Mark: Issues [1] to [4]
- Conclusion on Issue 1(a)
- Chronology in relation to Issue 1(a)
- Dissolution
- Restoration/Vesting
- Trade Mark renewal
- Post Restoration
- Beneficial Interest?
- Issues [1] to [4]
- Issue [3] – Ownership
- Issue [2] – revocation for non-use
- Issue [1(b)] – Invalidity
- Issue [4] – Infringement
- Passing Off - Issues [5] to [8]
- Goodwill
- Has the goodwill passed to NHBCL?
- Organic Hill goodwill
- The Restored Company’s goodwill
- Abandonment
- NHBCL’s goodwill?
- Evidence of NHBCL goodwill
- Misrepresentation and damage
- Copyright - Issues [9] to [12]
- Artistic Copyright
- Copyright infringement
- The Defendants signs
- Joint Tortfeasors - Issue [14]
- Next steps
![IP-2023-000120 - [2025] EWHC 1793 (IPEC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AacSvIO.png)