Abudantia BV v Fastron Limited & Anor

Abudantia BV v Fastron Limited & Anor

The TLA expired at the end of the Initial Term as neither positive performance nor mutual understanding of business goals was established; the Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof. No Termination Sum was payable. The Defendants' actions were not part of a conspiracy but a brand protection strategy. No torts of malicious falsehood, inducing breach of contract, or malicious prosecution were made out, and no damages or injunctive/declaratory relief were warranted.

Parties
Claimant: Abudantia B.V.; First Defendant: Fastron Limited; Second Defendant: Rillius Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Contract, Trademark Licensing, Conspiracy, Malicious Falsehood, Inducing Breach of Contract, Malicious Prosecution, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Contract Law Intellectual Property Tort Law Termination of Contract Trademark Licensing Conspiracy Malicious Falsehood Inducing Breach of Contract +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abudantia B.V.

Claimant

Fastron Limited

First Defendant

Rillius Holdings Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Trademark Licensing Agreement (TLA) expired or continued after the Initial Term
  2. 2 Whether the subjectivities for renewal under clause 13.1 of the TLA were satisfied
  3. 3 Whether the Termination Sum is payable

Ratio Decidendi

The TLA expired at the end of the Initial Term as neither positive performance nor mutual understanding of business goals was established; the Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof. No Termination Sum was payable. The Defendants' actions were not part of a conspiracy but a brand protection strategy. No torts of malicious falsehood, inducing breach of contract, or malicious prosecution were made out, and no damages or injunctive/declaratory relief were warranted.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed