Leofelis SA & Anor v Lonsdale Sports Ltd & Ors

Leofelis SA & Anor v Lonsdale Sports Ltd & Ors

The letter of 28 February 2006 was not an unequivocal notice of termination and did not terminate the November 2002 Agreement. The oral and contractual statements regarding the Alavi Licence were not false representations or warranties that it would be effectively terminated. Clause 5A of the Lord John SPA did not create a licence or right in respect of the marks requiring disclosure. Acceptance of royalties with knowledge of Leeside's extended sub-licence did not amount to authorisation of that sub-licence. The injunctions, though unusual, were within the court's discretion. The interim payment should not have been released without adequate security.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Leofelis SA; Claimant/respondent: Leeside SRL; Defendant/appellant: Lonsdale Sports Ltd; Defendant/appellant: The Trade Mark Licensing Co Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Sports World International Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Licensing, Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Waiver, Sub Licensing, Injunctions, Interim Payments
Contract Law Intellectual Property Law Trade Mark Licensing Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Waiver Sub Licensing Injunctions +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leofelis SA

Claimant/respondent

Leeside SRL

Claimant/respondent

Lonsdale Sports Ltd

Defendant/appellant

The Trade Mark Licensing Co Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Sports World International Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the November 2002 Agreement was validly terminated for breach or waiver
  2. 2 Whether there was misrepresentation or breach of warranty regarding the Alavi Licence and clause 5A of the Lord John SPA
  3. 3 Whether Leeside was an authorised sub-licensee for territories beyond Italy

Ratio Decidendi

The letter of 28 February 2006 was not an unequivocal notice of termination and did not terminate the November 2002 Agreement. The oral and contractual statements regarding the Alavi Licence were not false representations or warranties that it would be effectively terminated. Clause 5A of the Lord John SPA did not create a licence or right in respect of the marks requiring disclosure. Acceptance of royalties with knowledge of Leeside's extended sub-licence did not amount to authorisation of that sub-licence. The injunctions, though unusual, were within the court's discretion. The interim payment should not have been released without adequate security.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Permission to amend grounds of appeal granted except on damages
  • Appeal on waiver issue dismissed; November 2002 Agreement not terminated