Fenty & Ors v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop)

Fenty & Ors v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop)

Trade evidence describing factual circumstances of the relevant market by persons in that trade, even when deploying their experience, is not necessarily expert evidence within CPR Part 35. However, evidence relying on research or expressing opinions on the ultimate issue before the court may constitute expert evidence and require permission.

Parties
Claimant: Robyn Rihanna Fenty; Claimant: Roraj Trade LLC; Claimant: Combermere Entertainment Properties LLC; Defendant: Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop); Defendant: Topshop/Topman Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence Before Trial
Outcome
Ruling on admissibility of evidence
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Trade Evidence, Expert Evidence, Case Management, Admissibility of Evidence
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Passing Off Trade Evidence Expert Evidence Case Management Admissibility of Evidence

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 1 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robyn Rihanna Fenty

Claimant

Roraj Trade LLC

Claimant

Combermere Entertainment Properties LLC

Claimant

Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop)

Defendant

Topshop/Topman Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trade evidence in trademark and passing off cases constitutes expert evidence under CPR Part 35
  2. 2 Whether such evidence is admissible without permission
  3. 3 Case management issues regarding duplicative and irrelevant evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Trade evidence describing factual circumstances of the relevant market by persons in that trade, even when deploying their experience, is not necessarily expert evidence within CPR Part 35. However, evidence relying on research or expressing opinions on the ultimate issue before the court may constitute expert evidence and require permission.

Court Disposition

Ruling on admissibility of evidence

Orders

  • Mr. Robinson's evidence is expert evidence and requires permission under CPR Part 35.
  • Other trade evidence from both sides is not formally inadmissible as a matter of principle under Rule 35.