Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2015] All ER (D) 164 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2015] EWHC 1372 (IPEC)
Court: Intellectual Property Enterprise Court
Judge:

Judge Hacon

Representation Thomas St Quintin (instructed by McDaniel & Co) for Alfrank.
  Isabel Jamal (instructed by DMH Stallard LLP) for Exclusive.
Judgment Dates: 18 May 2015

Catchwords

Intellectual property - Design rights - Damages - Inquiry as to damages - Claimant and first defendant being competing wholesalers of furniture - Second defendant being retailer and purchasing furniture from claimant and first defendant - Claimant bringing proceedings against defendants, alleging defendants being involved in infringement in UK unregistered design rights in the design of claimant's jeans - Defendants agreeing to inquiry as to damages on the basis infringing claimant's unregistered European Union and United Kingdom design rights - Court conducting inquiry as to damages - Appropriate order for damages.

The Case

Intellectual property Design rights. The claimant and the first defendant were competing wholesalers of furniture, which they sold to retailers such as the second defendant. The claimant sought damages for loss allegedly arising from the defendants' sale of tables, allegedly infringing the claimant's design rights in respect of its own tables. By a Tomlin order, the defendants agreed that there should be an inquiry as to damages on the basis that they had infringed the claimant's unregistered European Union and United Kingdom design rights.The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court ruled that, in relation to 20% of the sales of both tables by the first defendant, the claimant was entitled to the profit it would have made from sales of equal numbers of its own tables of equivalent design, plus the profit it would have made from sales of convoyed goods. In relation to the remaining 80% of sales of infringing tables by the first defendant, the claimant was entitled to damages of 100 per table.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.