EasyGroup Ltd v Beauty Perfectionists Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 520 (Ch) (21 February 2024)

The application to amend was refused because it would introduce a new and broader case at a very late stage, causing prejudice to the Defendants who would be unable to respond adequately before trial, and because the Claimant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the lateness of the amendment.

Citation: [2024] EWHC 520 (Ch)
Parties: Claimant: EasyGroup Limited; Defendants: Beauty Perfectionists Limited and Others
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 21 February 2024
Procedural Posture: Trademark Infringement Claim / Pre Trial Review; Application to Amend Response to RFI
Outcome: Application to amend refused
Legal Topics: Trademark Infringement, Amendment of Pleadings, Disclosure, Reputation of Trademark, Civil Procedure Rules

Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Trademark Infringement Amendment of Pleadings Disclosure Reputation of Trademark Civil Procedure Rules

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2

Parties

EasyGroup Limited

Claimant

Beauty Perfectionists Limited and Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Trademark Infringement Claim / Pre Trial Review; Application to Amend Response to RFI

Legal Issues

1 Whether to permit the Claimant to further amend its response to the Defendants' RFI to add a new claim of reputation in retail services for cosmetics and fragrances under Article 9(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to amend refused

Orders

Permission to amend response to RFI to clarify tax status of retail services granted
Permission to insert new subparagraph regarding reputation in retail services for cosmetics and fragrances refused