MONTRES BREGUET S.A & Ors. v SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD & Anor

MONTRES BREGUET S.A & Ors. v SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD & Anor

An injunction in the conventional form is justified as Samsung failed to demonstrate special reasons for refusal, including proportionality or lack of risk of further infringement. No stay of injunction pending appeal is warranted due to insufficient risk of irremediable prejudice to Samsung and ongoing risk to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Montres Breguet S.A.; Claimant: Blancpain S.A.; Claimant: Montres Jaquet Droz S.A.; Claimant: Omega S.A.; Claimant: Compagnie des Montres Longines, Francillon S.A.; Claimant: Tissot S.A.; Claimant: Mido S.A.; Claimant: Hamilton International S.A.; Claimant: Swatch S.A.; Claimant: Glashütter Uhrenbetrieb GmbH; Defendant: Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd; Defendant: Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property / Post Trial Judgment on Injunctive Relief, Quantum, Costs, and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Injunction granted; stay pending appeal refused; quantum steps stayed pending appeal; costs awarded to claimants at 85%; permission to appeal granted in part.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Injunctive Relief, Quantum Determination, Costs, Permission to Appeal
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Trade Mark Infringement Injunctive Relief Quantum Determination Costs Permission to Appeal

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Montres Breguet S.A.

Claimant

Blancpain S.A.

Claimant

Montres Jaquet Droz S.A.

Claimant

Omega S.A.

Claimant

Compagnie des Montres Longines, Francillon S.A.

Claimant

Tissot S.A.

Claimant

Mido S.A.

Claimant

Hamilton International S.A.

Claimant

Swatch S.A.

Claimant

Glashütter Uhrenbetrieb GmbH

Claimant

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd

Defendant

Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property / Post Trial Judgment on Injunctive Relief, Quantum, Costs, and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether injunctive relief should be granted against Samsung for trade mark infringement
  2. 2 Whether a stay of injunction pending appeal is justified
  3. 3 Whether steps towards quantum determination should proceed pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

An injunction in the conventional form is justified as Samsung failed to demonstrate special reasons for refusal, including proportionality or lack of risk of further infringement. No stay of injunction pending appeal is warranted due to insufficient risk of irremediable prejudice to Samsung and ongoing risk to Swatch. Steps on quantum are stayed pending appeal as further articulation would not be proportionate. Costs are awarded to Swatch at 85% with interim payments calculated as 65% of incurred costs, 90% of budgeted costs, and 20% of out-of-budget costs. Permission to appeal is granted only on genuine points of law relating to Article 14 and 'use'.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted; stay pending appeal refused; quantum steps stayed pending appeal; costs awarded to claimants at 85%; permission to appeal granted in part.

Orders

  • Samsung restrained by injunction from further trade mark infringement.
  • No stay of injunction pending appeal.