Red Bull GmbH v Big Horn UK Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 2794 (Ch) (12 November 2018)

Red Bull GmbH v Big Horn UK Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 2794 (Ch) (12 November 2018)

The claimant's applications for strike out, summary judgment, and default judgment were dismissed because the procedural defects in the defendants' defences were either minor, remedied, or not sufficiently serious to justify striking out; the substantive defences raised real prospects of success regarding the similarity of marks and likelihood of confusion; and default judgment was inappropriate as the second defendant had filed a defence before being validly served. The court also granted permission for the first and third defendants to amend their defence in the terms of the re-verified Briffa Defence.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2794 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Red Bull GmbH; First Defendant: Big Horn UK Limited; Second Defendant: Voltino EOOD; Third Defendant: Lyubomir Enchev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property (trade Mark Infringement) / Interlocutory Applications for Strike Out, Summary Judgment, and Default Judgment
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Default Judgment, Service by Alternative Means
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Trade Mark Infringement Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Default Judgment Service by Alternative Means

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Red Bull GmbH

Claimant

Big Horn UK Limited

First Defendant

Voltino EOOD

Second Defendant

Lyubomir Enchev

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property (trade Mark Infringement) / Interlocutory Applications for Strike Out, Summary Judgment, and Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defences of the defendants should be struck out or summary judgment granted for procedural or substantive deficiencies
  2. 2 Whether default judgment should be entered against the second defendant for failure to acknowledge service
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' defences disclose reasonable grounds or are likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's applications for strike out, summary judgment, and default judgment were dismissed because the procedural defects in the defendants' defences were either minor, remedied, or not sufficiently serious to justify striking out; the substantive defences raised real prospects of success regarding the similarity of marks and likelihood of confusion; and default judgment was inappropriate as the second defendant had filed a defence before being validly served. The court also granted permission for the first and third defendants to amend their defence in the terms of the re-verified Briffa Defence.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's applications for strike out, summary judgment, and default judgment are dismissed.
  • First and third defendants granted permission to amend their defence in the terms of the re-verified Briffa Defence, to be filed and served in accordance with CPR Part 6 if not accepted by email.