Bargain Busting Limited v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd

Bargain Busting Limited v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd

The judge erred in law by not applying the general rule that the applicant must be more likely than not to succeed at trial before granting an interim injunction 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, and there was no respondent's notice to the contrary, the injunction should not have been granted.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interim Injunction Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; injunction set aside
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Unjustified Threats, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998
Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Law Trade Marks Unjustified Threats Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998

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 8 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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interim Injunction Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct threshold for granting an interim injunction to restrain threats of trade mark infringement proceedings under section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998?
  2. 2 Did the judge err in law by applying a lower threshold than 'more likely than not' for likelihood of success at trial?
  3. 3 Should the injunction have been granted given the facts and the applicable legal principles?

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 before granting an interim injunction 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, and there was no respondent's notice to the contrary, 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.