Lifestyle Equities CV & Anor. v Amazon UK Services Limited & Ors.

Lifestyle Equities CV & Anor. v Amazon UK Services Limited & Ors.

Declarations were refused as they would not serve a useful purpose beyond the judgment itself. An injunction was granted to restrain further infringement due to lack of undertaking and ongoing risk. An inquiry as to damages was ordered at the claimant's risk. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused as no arguable point of law of general public importance was identified.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Lifestyle Equities CV; Claimant/appellant: Lifestyle Licensing BV; Defendant/respondent: Amazon UK Services Limited; Defendant/respondent: Amazon Export Sales LLC; Defendant/respondent: Amazon.com Inc; Defendant/respondent: Amazon Europe Core SARL; Defendant/respondent: Amazon EU SARL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Consequential Issues After Appeal
Outcome
Declarations refused; injunction granted; inquiry as to damages ordered; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Injunctions, Declarations, Damages Inquiry, Appeal Procedure
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Trade Mark Infringement Injunctions Declarations Damages Inquiry Appeal Procedure

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lifestyle Equities CV

Claimant/appellant

Lifestyle Licensing BV

Claimant/appellant

Amazon UK Services Limited

Defendant/respondent

Amazon Export Sales LLC

Defendant/respondent

Amazon.com Inc

Defendant/respondent

Amazon Europe Core SARL

Defendant/respondent

Amazon EU SARL

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Consequential Issues After Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether declarations should be granted regarding infringement findings
  2. 2 Whether an injunction should be issued to restrain further infringement
  3. 3 Whether an inquiry as to damages should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

Declarations were refused as they would not serve a useful purpose beyond the judgment itself. An injunction was granted to restrain further infringement due to lack of undertaking and ongoing risk. An inquiry as to damages was ordered at the claimant's risk. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused as no arguable point of law of general public importance was identified.

Court Disposition

Declarations refused; injunction granted; inquiry as to damages ordered; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Declarations sought by Lifestyle refused.
  • Injunction granted to restrain infringement of the Trade Marks by the Second and Fourth Defendants.