Apple Corps Ltd v Apple Computer Inc [2004] EWHC 768 (Ch) (07 April 2004)

Apple Corps Ltd v Apple Computer Inc [2004] EWHC 768 (Ch) (07 April 2004)

The court held that Apple Corps had established a good arguable case that the Trade Mark Agreement was made in England (or in both England and California), satisfying CPR 6.20(5)(a). The court also accepted, as a matter of principle, that a contract could be made in two places simultaneously. The evidence did not preclude English law as the governing law, and the claimant had a good arguable case on the other jurisdictional grounds. The application to set aside service out was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 768 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Apple Corps Limited; Defendant: Apple Computer, Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Jurisdictional Challenge (service Out of Jurisdiction) / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application dismissed; English court retains jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Governing Law, Trade Mark Agreement, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Forum Conveniens
Private International Law Contract Law Intellectual Property Jurisdiction Governing Law Trade Mark Agreement Service Out of Jurisdiction Forum Conveniens

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apple Corps Limited

Claimant

Apple Computer, Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Jurisdictional Challenge (service Out of Jurisdiction) / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Where was the Trade Mark Agreement made for jurisdictional purposes?
  2. 2 Is the contract governed by English law?
  3. 3 Is there a threatened breach of contract within the jurisdiction?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Apple Corps had established a good arguable case that the Trade Mark Agreement was made in England (or in both England and California), satisfying CPR 6.20(5)(a). The court also accepted, as a matter of principle, that a contract could be made in two places simultaneously. The evidence did not preclude English law as the governing law, and the claimant had a good arguable case on the other jurisdictional grounds. The application to set aside service out was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; English court retains jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Defendant's application to set aside service out of jurisdiction is dismissed.
  • Proceedings to continue in the English court.