The London Taxi Corporation Ltd (t/a the London Taxi Company) v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd & Anor

The London Taxi Corporation Ltd (t/a the London Taxi Company) v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd & Anor

The application was dismissed because the proposed survey evidence was not likely to be of real value in determining the central issue of deception, failed to comply with the Whitford Guidelines (notably by using leading questions and artificial show materials), and the cost and potential impact on the trial were disproportionate to any evidential benefit.

Parties
Claimant: The London Taxi Corporation Limited (trading as The London Taxi Company); First Defendant: Frazer-Nash Research Limited; Second Defendant: Ecotive Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property (passing Off and Trade Mark Infringement) / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Survey Evidence
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Trade Mark Infringement, Survey Evidence, Cost Benefit Analysis, Whitford Guidelines
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Passing Off Trade Mark Infringement Survey Evidence Cost Benefit Analysis Whitford Guidelines

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The London Taxi Corporation Limited (trading as The London Taxi Company)

Claimant

Frazer-Nash Research Limited

First Defendant

Ecotive Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property (passing Off and Trade Mark Infringement) / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Survey Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be granted permission to adduce pilot and full survey evidence in support of its passing off claim
  2. 2 Whether the proposed survey evidence is likely to be of real value and justifies the cost under the applicable legal principles

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the proposed survey evidence was not likely to be of real value in determining the central issue of deception, failed to comply with the Whitford Guidelines (notably by using leading questions and artificial show materials), and the cost and potential impact on the trial were disproportionate to any evidential benefit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to adduce pilot and full survey evidence refused