Riemann & Co & Ors v Linco Care Ltd

Riemann & Co & Ors v Linco Care Ltd

The balance of convenience marginally favours the grant of interim relief, as the risk of irreparable harm to the claimants if no injunction is granted is greater than the risk to the defendant if relief is granted. Fairness also supports granting relief, as withholding it would create an imbalance in consequences...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: Riemann & Co. & Ors.; Defendant: Linco Care Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction / Interlocutory (pending Trial)
Outcome
Interim injunction granted restraining use of C20 pending trial, subject to exceptions for supplies already contracted as at noon on the date of order; directions for speedy trial and costs order made.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off, Interim Injunction, Balance of Convenience, Costs
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Trade Mark Infringement Passing Off Interim Injunction Balance of Convenience Costs

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Riemann & Co. & Ors.

Applicant/claimant

Linco Care Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunction / Interlocutory (pending Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to an interim injunction restraining alleged infringement of community trade marks and passing off by the defendant's product C20
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting or refusing interim relief
  3. 3 Whether either party will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is granted or refused

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of convenience marginally favours the grant of interim relief, as the risk of irreparable harm to the claimants if no injunction is granted is greater than the risk to the defendant if relief is granted. Fairness also supports granting relief, as withholding it would create an imbalance in consequences depending on trial outcome.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted restraining use of C20 pending trial, subject to exceptions for supplies already contracted as at noon on the date of order; directions for speedy trial and costs order made.

Orders

  • Interim injunction restraining further supplies of C20 except for supplies contracted as at 12 o'clock on date of order
  • Claimants awarded half their costs of the application payable in any event, other half as costs in the case