Crafts Group LLC v M/S Indeutsch International & Anor [2021] EWHC 3505 (IPEC) (23 December 2021)

Crafts Group LLC v M/S Indeutsch International & Anor [2021] EWHC 3505 (IPEC) (23 December 2021)

Service out of the jurisdiction was not invalidated by the procedural failure to serve application documents or by alleged non-disclosure, as neither was serious or significant, caused prejudice, or affected the court's jurisdiction. The threats action did not fall within Article 124 EUTMR, so Article 132 EUTMR and the related stay regime were not engaged. There was no basis for a discretionary stay under CPR 3.1(f) as the facts did not justify it at this stage.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3505 (IPEC)
Parties
Claimant: Crafts Group LLC; First Defendant: M/S Indeutsch International; Second Defendant: M/S KnitPro International
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction And/or Stay Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Unjustified Threats, Trade Mark Infringement, Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Stay of Proceedings, Disclosure Obligations
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Unjustified Threats Trade Mark Infringement Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Stay of Proceedings Disclosure Obligations

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crafts Group LLC

Claimant

M/S Indeutsch International

First Defendant

M/S KnitPro International

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction And/or Stay Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service out of the jurisdiction should be set aside for procedural failures or material non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the court should stay proceedings pending EUIPO validity determination
  3. 3 Whether the relevant EU and UK statutory provisions require or permit a stay

Ratio Decidendi

Service out of the jurisdiction was not invalidated by the procedural failure to serve application documents or by alleged non-disclosure, as neither was serious or significant, caused prejudice, or affected the court's jurisdiction. The threats action did not fall within Article 124 EUTMR, so Article 132 EUTMR and the related stay regime were not engaged. There was no basis for a discretionary stay under CPR 3.1(f) as the facts did not justify it at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Service out of the jurisdiction stands
  • No stay of proceedings pending EUIPO validity determination