Sazerac Brands, LLC & Ors v Liverpool Gin Distillery Ltd & Ors

Sazerac Brands, LLC & Ors v Liverpool Gin Distillery Ltd & Ors

Permission to re-re-amend is granted only in relation to the VERA LYNN allegation, as it is straightforward, not substantially disputed, and will not cause significant prejudice or disrupt trial preparation. Permission is refused for the PEAKY BLINDER allegation due to its complexity, lateness, and potential to prejudice the defendants and encumber the trial.

Parties
Claimant: Sazerac Brands, LLC; Claimant: Sazerac Company, Inc; Claimant: Sazerac UK Limited; Defendant: Liverpool Gin Distillery Limited; Defendant: Halewood International Limited; Defendant: Halewood International Brands Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property (trade Mark) / Application for Permission to Re Re Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application granted in part, refused in part
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off, Similar Fact Evidence, Amendment of Pleadings
Intellectual Property Law Trade Mark Infringement Passing Off Similar Fact Evidence Amendment of Pleadings

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sazerac Brands, LLC

Claimant

Sazerac Company, Inc

Claimant

Sazerac UK Limited

Claimant

Liverpool Gin Distillery Limited

Defendant

Halewood International Limited

Defendant

Halewood International Brands Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property (trade Mark) / Application for Permission to Re Re Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant permission to re-re-amend particulars of claim to include similar fact evidence alleging propensity of defendants to intentionally or recklessly take unfair advantage of reputation and goodwill of others

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to re-re-amend is granted only in relation to the VERA LYNN allegation, as it is straightforward, not substantially disputed, and will not cause significant prejudice or disrupt trial preparation. Permission is refused for the PEAKY BLINDER allegation due to its complexity, lateness, and potential to prejudice the defendants and encumber the trial.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part, refused in part

Orders

  • Permission to re-re-amend particulars of claim to include VERA LYNN allegation granted.
  • Permission to include PEAKY BLINDER allegation refused.