Lifestyle Equities CV v The Copyrights Group Ltd & Ors

Lifestyle Equities CV v The Copyrights Group Ltd & Ors

The signs used by the Defendants (specifically Greenwich Sign 3) were not similar to the Claimants’ Logo, particularly due to the distinct word elements and generic nature of the figurative elements, resulting in no likelihood of confusion or injury to reputation; thus, no infringement or passing off occurred, and accessory liability claims failed.

Parties
Claimant: Lifestyle Equities CV; Claimant: Lifestyle Licensing BV; Defendant: The Copyrights Group Limited; Defendant: Nicholas Francis Durbridge; Defendant: Greenwich Polo Club Inc; Defendant: PJB Brands Limited; Defendant: Makezo Limited; Defendant: George Christidis & Co EE; Defendant: Vision AP DWW-LLC; Defendant: FibERTEX MON IKE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property/trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off, Accessory Liability, EU Trade Mark Regulation, UK Trade Marks Act 1994
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Trade Mark Infringement Passing Off Accessory Liability EU Trade Mark Regulation UK Trade Marks Act 1994

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lifestyle Equities CV

Claimant

Lifestyle Licensing BV

Claimant

The Copyrights Group Limited

Defendant

Nicholas Francis Durbridge

Defendant

Greenwich Polo Club Inc

Defendant

PJB Brands Limited

Defendant

Makezo Limited

Defendant

George Christidis & Co EE

Defendant

Vision AP DWW-LLC

Defendant

FibERTEX MON IKE

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property/trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants infringed the Claimants’ trade marks under Article 9(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001 and sections 10(2) and (3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants committed the tort of passing off
  3. 3 Whether accessory liability attaches to the Defendants for acts of licensees

Ratio Decidendi

The signs used by the Defendants (specifically Greenwich Sign 3) were not similar to the Claimants’ Logo, particularly due to the distinct word elements and generic nature of the figurative elements, resulting in no likelihood of confusion or injury to reputation; thus, no infringement or passing off occurred, and accessory liability claims failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claims against the Fourth Defendant dismissed as company no longer exists
  • No injunctive or declaratory relief granted