Sportswear Spa & Anor v Stonestyle Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 380 (11 April 2006)

Sportswear Spa & Anor v Stonestyle Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 380 (11 April 2006)

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision to strike out paragraphs 16-18 of the Defence. Article 81 EC Treaty does not provide a defence to trade mark infringement unless the breach is so closely connected to the enforcement that it renders the enforcement itself a breach of Community law. The alleged anti-competitive agreements, even if proven, do not automatically bar the Respondents from enforcing their trade mark rights against the Appellant. The nexus required for Article 81 to operate as a defence was not sufficiently pleaded or established.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 380
Parties
Respondent Claimant: SPORTSWEAR SpA; Respondent Claimant: FOUR MARKETING LIMITED; Appellant Defendant: STONESTYLE LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Chancery Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; paragraphs 16-18 of Defence remain struck out.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Market Partitioning, Article 81 EC Treaty, Parallel Imports, Distribution Agreements
Intellectual Property Competition Law European Union Law Trade Mark Infringement Market Partitioning Article 81 EC Treaty Parallel Imports Distribution Agreements

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SPORTSWEAR SpA

Respondent Claimant

FOUR MARKETING LIMITED

Respondent Claimant

STONESTYLE LIMITED

Appellant Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Chancery Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 16-18 of the Defence alleging breach of Article 81 EC Treaty should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether trade mark enforcement in context of anti-competitive agreements is permissible
  3. 3 Nexus between breach of Article 81 and enforcement of trade mark rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision to strike out paragraphs 16-18 of the Defence. Article 81 EC Treaty does not provide a defence to trade mark infringement unless the breach is so closely connected to the enforcement that it renders the enforcement itself a breach of Community law. The alleged anti-competitive agreements, even if proven, do not automatically bar the Respondents from enforcing their trade mark rights against the Appellant. The nexus required for Article 81 to operate as a defence was not sufficiently pleaded or established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; paragraphs 16-18 of Defence remain struck out.

Orders

  • Strike out paragraphs 16-18 of Defence alleging breach of Article 81 EC Treaty
  • Proceed to trial on remaining issues