Scomadi Ltd & Anor v RA Engineering Co. Ltd & Ors

Scomadi Ltd & Anor v RA Engineering Co. Ltd & Ors

Permission to appeal was refused because the claimants failed to challenge the key factual findings or legal principles underpinning the main judgment, and their proposed grounds lacked real prospects of success. No publicity order was made as the dispute was not widely publicised. Disclosure of the recipients of the threatening letter was ordered to allow the defendants to set the record straight. Costs were awarded in favour of the defendants as they were the substantive winners, and a payment on account of £42,000 was ordered.

Parties
Claimant/applicant/defendant to Additional Counterclaim: Scomadi Limited; Claimant/applicant/defendant to Additional Counterclaim: Scomadi Worldwide Limited; Defendant/respondent: RA Engineering Co. Limited; Defendant/respondent: Yiming Chen; Defendant/respondent: MotoGB Limited; Additional Counterclaimant: Changzhou Hanwei Vehicle Science & Technology Limited Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Dispute (design Rights, Contract, Passing Off, Trade Mark) / Post Trial Judgment on Subsequent Issues, Including Permission to Appeal, Publicity, Disclosure, and Costs
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; no publicity order; disclosure of letter recipients ordered; costs awarded to defendants; payment on account ordered
Legal Topics
Design Rights Ownership, Joint Ownership of Intellectual Property, Interpretation of Supplementary Agreements, Estoppel, Disclosure of Recipients of Threatening Letters, Publicity Orders, Costs and Payments on Account
Intellectual Property Contract Law Civil Procedure Design Rights Ownership Joint Ownership of Intellectual Property Interpretation of Supplementary Agreements Estoppel Disclosure of Recipients of Threatening Letters +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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scomadi Limited

Claimant/applicant/defendant to Additional Counterclaim

Scomadi Worldwide Limited

Claimant/applicant/defendant to Additional Counterclaim

RA Engineering Co. Limited

Defendant/respondent

Yiming Chen

Defendant/respondent

MotoGB Limited

Defendant/respondent

Changzhou Hanwei Vehicle Science & Technology Limited Company

Additional Counterclaimant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Dispute (design Rights, Contract, Passing Off, Trade Mark) / Post Trial Judgment on Subsequent Issues, Including Permission to Appeal, Publicity, Disclosure, and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted on findings regarding joint ownership of designs and construction of the Supplementary Agreement
  2. 2 Whether a publicity order should be made requiring publication of the judgment
  3. 3 Whether claimants should disclose the recipients of a threatening letter

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because the claimants failed to challenge the key factual findings or legal principles underpinning the main judgment, and their proposed grounds lacked real prospects of success. No publicity order was made as the dispute was not widely publicised. Disclosure of the recipients of the threatening letter was ordered to allow the defendants to set the record straight. Costs were awarded in favour of the defendants as they were the substantive winners, and a payment on account of £42,000 was ordered.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; no publicity order; disclosure of letter recipients ordered; costs awarded to defendants; payment on account ordered

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused to claimants on all grounds
  • No order for publication of judgment on claimants' website