Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2003] All ER (D) 362 (May)
Court: Chancery Division
Judge:

Neuberger J

Representation Martin Howe QC (instructed by Arnold Porter) for the claimant.
  Mark Jones (instructed by Wendy Trainer, Liverpool) for the first defendant.
  Ashley Roughton (instructed by Charles Russell) for the second defendant.
  Madeleine Heal (instructed by Hill Dickinson, Liverpool) for the sixth, seventh and eighth defendants.
Judgment Dates: 23 May 2003

Catchwords

Trade marks - Infringement - Delivery up - Application for delivery up and destruction of goods - Defendants arguing application for destruction should follow making of order for delivery up - Construction of statutory provisions - ss 16, 19.

The Case

Where a statute was concerned with business matters, it was appropriate to invoke commercial common sense. In order to give effect to s16(2) of the s19(1) would be construed to mean that destruction of the goods, rather than the application for an order for destruction, was to take place after delivery up of the goods. Although rather strained, that construction was reinforced by commercial common sense, as the making of the applications sequentially, while sometimes appropriate, would have consequences in respect of costs and use of court time.

Practice Areas

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