ATB Sales Ltd v Rich Energy Ltd & Anor

ATB Sales Ltd v Rich Energy Ltd & Anor

The court found that D1’s Device was copied from C’s Device, that the similarities were too extensive to be coincidental, and that the Defendants’ evidence of independent creation was unreliable and dishonest. The copying was of the whole or at least a substantial part of C’s Device, constituting infringement. The Second and Third Defendants were jointly liable as joint tortfeasors. The Claimant was entitled to injunctive relief, damages or account of profits, and a declaration of invalidity of D1’s Mark.

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 for the Claimant.
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Original Artistic Work, Joint Tortfeasorship, Independent Creation, Substantial Part, Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief, Invalidity of Trade Mark
Intellectual Property Copyright Law Copyright Infringement Original Artistic Work Joint Tortfeasorship Independent Creation Substantial Part Declaratory Relief +2 more

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 13 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 the infringing acts

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that D1’s Device was copied from C’s Device, that the similarities were too extensive to be coincidental, and that the Defendants’ evidence of independent creation was unreliable and dishonest. The copying was of the whole or at least a substantial part of C’s Device, constituting infringement. The Second and Third Defendants were jointly liable as joint tortfeasors. The Claimant was entitled to injunctive relief, damages or account of profits, and a declaration of invalidity of D1’s Mark.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed for the Claimant.

Orders

  • Injunction granted to restrain further infringement
  • Damages or account of profits at Claimant’s election