ABP Technology Ltd v Voyetra Turtle Beach Inc & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 594 (04 May 2022)

ABP Technology Ltd v Voyetra Turtle Beach Inc & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 594 (04 May 2022)

The judge erred in permitting amendments to the pleadings where the lateness of the application was deliberately calculated to deprive the claimant of a statutory defence, no justification for the lateness was provided, and the resulting prejudice was irremediable. The absence of evidence explaining the timing was fatal to the application, and permitting the amendment would sanction deliberate concealment and abuse of process.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 594
Parties
Appellant/claimant: ABP Technology Limited; Respondent/defendant: Voyetra Turtle Beach Incorporated; Respondent/defendant: Turtle Beach Europe Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision on Amendment of Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Amendment of Pleadings, Revocation for Non Use, Civil Litigation Tactics, Exercise of Discretion
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Trade Marks Amendment of Pleadings Revocation for Non Use Civil Litigation Tactics Exercise of Discretion

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABP Technology Limited

Appellant/claimant

Voyetra Turtle Beach Incorporated

Respondent/defendant

Turtle Beach Europe Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision on Amendment of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in permitting amendments to pleadings that deprived the claimant of the opportunity to seek revocation of a trade mark for non-use
  2. 2 Whether the timing of the amendment amounted to deliberate concealment and caused irremediable prejudice
  3. 3 Whether the absence of justification for the lateness of the amendment should have been fatal to the application

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in permitting amendments to the pleadings where the lateness of the application was deliberately calculated to deprive the claimant of a statutory defence, no justification for the lateness was provided, and the resulting prejudice was irremediable. The absence of evidence explaining the timing was fatal to the application, and permitting the amendment would sanction deliberate concealment and abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to amend pleadings refused
  • Voyetra's amendments to introduce s11(1B) defence and counterclaim for infringement of Mark 250 not permitted