Williams Entertainment Ltd & Anor v Clarke & Ors [2022] EWHC 2861 (Ch) (19 October 2022)

Williams Entertainment Ltd & Anor v Clarke & Ors [2022] EWHC 2861 (Ch) (19 October 2022)

The court declined to award all interlocutory costs to Claimants, limited additional costs for Reply to £1,300 for the Part 18 request, held Defendants jointly and severally liable for costs, refused to limit or clarify the injunction as requested by Defendants, left domain name and social media provisions unchanged, and capped publicity order costs at £3,000 with dissemination limited to prior contacts.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2861 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Alan Williams Entertainment Limited; Claimant: Alan Williams; Defendant: Mick Clarke; Defendant: John Richardson; Defendant: Steve Innes Etherington
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Intellectual Property (passing Off) / Post Trial, Final Order and Costs Determination
Outcome
Claimants' substantive claims and injunction granted with modifications; costs and publicity orders made as specified.
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Injunctions, Costs, Publicity Orders, Domain Names, Social Media Accounts
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Passing Off Injunctions Costs Publicity Orders Domain Names Social Media Accounts

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Williams Entertainment Limited

Claimant

Alan Williams

Claimant

Mick Clarke

Defendant

John Richardson

Defendant

Steve Innes Etherington

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Intellectual Property (passing Off) / Post Trial, Final Order and Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of interlocutory applications should be awarded to Claimants
  2. 2 Whether Claimants are entitled to additional costs for preparing a Reply
  3. 3 Whether Defendants are jointly and severally liable for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to award all interlocutory costs to Claimants, limited additional costs for Reply to £1,300 for the Part 18 request, held Defendants jointly and severally liable for costs, refused to limit or clarify the injunction as requested by Defendants, left domain name and social media provisions unchanged, and capped publicity order costs at £3,000 with dissemination limited to prior contacts.

Court Disposition

Claimants' substantive claims and injunction granted with modifications; costs and publicity orders made as specified.

Orders

  • Costs of interlocutory applications to follow prior judicial indications, not awarded to Claimants as a whole.
  • Claimants awarded £1,300 for costs of Part 18 request and related matters.