M L Technology Limited & Anor v B.E.A.T SAM & Ors [2023] EWHC 1660 (Ch) (08 June 2023)

M L Technology Limited & Anor v B.E.A.T SAM & Ors [2023] EWHC 1660 (Ch) (08 June 2023)

A stay was refused because the Swiss proceedings would not bind all parties or resolve all issues, and delay would prejudice the claimants, especially given Mr Maechel's age and health. Security for costs was refused as the claimants could not pay, the defendants' conduct contributed to their impecuniosity, and the claim had reasonable prospects. A short extension of time for defence was granted with a sanction for non-compliance. Default judgment was refused in light of the extension granted.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1660 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: M L Technology Limited; Claimant: Naurex Limited; Defendant: B. E. A. T SAM; Defendant: Capefront SA; Defendant: Mr Sylvestre Blavet; Defendant: Mr De Villemeur; Related Party: Naurex Group; Related Party: Andrew Perron; Related Party: Sandra Bootle; Related Party: Mr Maechel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Dispute / Interlocutory Applications: Stay, Security for Costs, Extension of Time, Default Judgment
Outcome
Defendants' applications for stay and security for costs dismissed; extension of time for defence granted; claimants' application for default judgment dismissed.
Legal Topics
Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Copyright Infringement, Security for Costs, Case Management Stay, Extension of Time, Default Judgment
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Trademark Infringement Passing Off Copyright Infringement Security for Costs Case Management Stay Extension of Time +1 more

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M L Technology Limited

Claimant

Naurex Limited

Claimant

B. E. A. T SAM

Defendant

Capefront SA

Defendant

Mr Sylvestre Blavet

Defendant

Mr De Villemeur

Defendant

Naurex Group

Related Party

Andrew Perron

Related Party

Sandra Bootle

Related Party

Mr Maechel

Related Party

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Dispute / Interlocutory Applications: Stay, Security for Costs, Extension of Time, Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a case management stay pending Swiss proceedings
  2. 2 Whether to order security for costs against claimants
  3. 3 Whether to grant an extension of time for defendants to file defence

Ratio Decidendi

A stay was refused because the Swiss proceedings would not bind all parties or resolve all issues, and delay would prejudice the claimants, especially given Mr Maechel's age and health. Security for costs was refused as the claimants could not pay, the defendants' conduct contributed to their impecuniosity, and the claim had reasonable prospects. A short extension of time for defence was granted with a sanction for non-compliance. Default judgment was refused in light of the extension granted.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications for stay and security for costs dismissed; extension of time for defence granted; claimants' application for default judgment dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to file defence within 28 days from judgment date; if not, debarred from defending and claimants may have judgment in default.
  • No stay of proceedings granted.