ZEE Entertainment Enterprises Ltd & Ors v Zeebox Ltd [2013] EWHC 1644 (Ch) (07 June 2013)

ZEE Entertainment Enterprises Ltd & Ors v Zeebox Ltd [2013] EWHC 1644 (Ch) (07 June 2013)

The court held that the proposed survey evidence was not likely to be of real value in the context of the passing off claim and that its value did not justify the substantial cost and increased trial length. Permission to adduce the survey evidence was therefore refused.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1644 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited; Claimant: Asia T. V. Limited; Claimant: Zee Multimedia Worldwide Limited; Defendant: Zeebox Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property (passing Off and Trade Mark Infringement) / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Survey Evidence
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Trade Mark Infringement, Survey Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Cost Benefit Analysis
Intellectual Property Passing Off Trade Mark Infringement Survey Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Cost Benefit Analysis

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited

Claimant

Asia T. V. Limited

Claimant

Zee Multimedia Worldwide Limited

Claimant

Zeebox Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property (passing Off and Trade Mark Infringement) / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Survey Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to adduce survey evidence in support of a passing off claim
  2. 2 Whether the proposed survey evidence is likely to be of real value and whether its value justifies the cost

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the proposed survey evidence was not likely to be of real value in the context of the passing off claim and that its value did not justify the substantial cost and increased trial length. Permission to adduce the survey evidence was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to adduce survey evidence refused