Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co. Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 532 (08 May 2026)

Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co. Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 532 (08 May 2026)

The judge erred in law by not applying the general rule that the applicant must be more likely than not to succeed at trial under section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Since the judge did not find that SKE's claims were more likely than not to succeed, the injunction should not have been granted.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 532
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Bargain Busting Limited; First Defendant/respondent: Shenzhen SKE Technology Co. Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Interim Injunction Decision in High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; injunction set aside.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Unjustified Threats, Interim Injunctions, Section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998, Freedom of Expression
Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Trade Mark Infringement Unjustified Threats Interim Injunctions Section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 Freedom of Expression

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bargain Busting Limited

Claimant/appellant

Shenzhen SKE Technology Co. Ltd

First Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Interim Injunction Decision in High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the threshold for granting an interim injunction restraining threats of trade mark infringement proceedings should be 'more likely than not' under section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in law by applying a lower threshold than 'more likely than not'
  3. 3 Whether the balance of risk of injustice justified the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by not applying the general rule that the applicant must be more likely than not to succeed at trial under section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Since the judge did not find that SKE's claims were more likely than not to succeed, the injunction should not have been granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; injunction set aside.

Orders

  • The interim injunction restraining threats of trade mark infringement proceedings is set aside.