Manchester United Football Club Ltd v Sega Publishing Europe Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1439 (Ch) (04 June 2020)

Manchester United Football Club Ltd v Sega Publishing Europe Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1439 (Ch) (04 June 2020)

Permission to amend was refused because the draft amendment failed to plead a risk of downstream use that would amount to an infringement under Article 9, as the pleaded use by gamers was not in the course of trade. The draft also did not sufficiently plead a common design to infringe Article 9. Therefore, the proposed amendment did not disclose a viable claim under Article 10.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1439 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Manchester United Football Club Limited; First Defendant: Sega Publishing Europe Limited; Second Defendant: Sports Interactive Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property (trade Mark Infringement) / Application for Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application for permission to amend refused
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off, Accessory Liability, EU Trade Mark Regulation, Pleading Amendments
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Trade Mark Infringement Passing Off Accessory Liability EU Trade Mark Regulation Pleading Amendments

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manchester United Football Club Limited

Claimant

Sega Publishing Europe Limited

First Defendant

Sports Interactive Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property (trade Mark Infringement) / Application for Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the draft amendment pleads a viable claim for accessorial liability under Article 10 of Regulation 2017/1001/EU
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded facts amount to a risk of downstream use constituting infringement under Article 9
  3. 3 Whether the draft amendment sufficiently pleads a common design to infringe Article 9 or Article 10

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend was refused because the draft amendment failed to plead a risk of downstream use that would amount to an infringement under Article 9, as the pleaded use by gamers was not in the course of trade. The draft also did not sufficiently plead a common design to infringe Article 9. Therefore, the proposed amendment did not disclose a viable claim under Article 10.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to amend refused

Orders

  • Permission to amend Particulars of Claim in accordance with the draft pleading is refused
  • Consequential matters, including costs, to be dealt with following judgment