ATB Sales Ltd v Rich Energy Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 1207 (IPEC) (14 May 2019)

ATB Sales Ltd v Rich Energy Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 1207 (IPEC) (14 May 2019)

The court found that D1's Device was copied from C's Device and reproduces a substantial part of it, amounting to copyright infringement. The evidence of independent design by the Defendants was not credible or reliable, and the Defendants' witnesses were found to have manufactured documents to support their case. The Second and Third Defendants were found jointly liable as joint tortfeasors. The use of D1's Mark is liable to be prevented by copyright law, and the Claimant is entitled to a declaration of invalidity under section 47(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1207 (IPEC)
Parties
Claimant: ATB Sales Limited; First Defendant: Rich Energy Limited; Second Defendant: William John Storey; Third Defendant: Staxoweb Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Artistic Works, Originality, Substantial Part, Joint Tortfeasorship, Trade Mark Invalidity
Intellectual Property Law Copyright Infringement Artistic Works Originality Substantial Part Joint Tortfeasorship Trade Mark Invalidity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ATB Sales Limited

Claimant

Rich Energy Limited

First Defendant

William John Storey

Second Defendant

Staxoweb Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright Infringement Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D1's Device was copied from C's Device or independently designed
  2. 2 If copied, whether D1's Device reproduces the whole or a substantial part of C's Device
  3. 3 Whether the Second and Third Defendants are jointly liable for infringement

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that D1's Device was copied from C's Device and reproduces a substantial part of it, amounting to copyright infringement. The evidence of independent design by the Defendants was not credible or reliable, and the Defendants' witnesses were found to have manufactured documents to support their case. The Second and Third Defendants were found jointly liable as joint tortfeasors. The use of D1's Mark is liable to be prevented by copyright law, and the Claimant is entitled to a declaration of invalidity under section 47(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Injunction granted restraining further infringement of copyright by the Defendants
  • Order for removal of D1's Device from products, website, and promotional materials