Mattel Inc v Woolbro (Distributors) Ltd & Ors

Mattel Inc v Woolbro (Distributors) Ltd & Ors

The similar fact evidence is admissible because the parties are large corporations, the issue of copying was clear from the outset, the defendants had fair notice, and no timely objection was raised; the evidence is not oppressive or unfair in these circumstances.

Parties
Claimant: Mattel, Inc; 1st Defendant: Woolbro (Distributors) Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Simba-Toys (Hong Kong) Ltd; 3rd Defendant: Simba-Toys GmbH & Co. KG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Application to exclude similar fact evidence dismissed
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Design Right Infringement, Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Copyright Infringement Design Right Infringement Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mattel, Inc

Claimant

Woolbro (Distributors) Ltd

1st Defendant

Simba-Toys (Hong Kong) Ltd

2nd Defendant

Simba-Toys GmbH & Co. KG

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether similar fact evidence should be admitted in a copyright and design right infringement action

Ratio Decidendi

The similar fact evidence is admissible because the parties are large corporations, the issue of copying was clear from the outset, the defendants had fair notice, and no timely objection was raised; the evidence is not oppressive or unfair in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude similar fact evidence dismissed

Orders

  • Similar fact evidence adduced by Mattel is admitted and will not be excluded