England and Wales Case Law

Abudantia BV v Fastron Limited & Anor

The TLA expired at the end of the Initial Term as neither positive performance nor mutual understanding of business goals was established; the Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof. No Termination Sum was payable. The Defendants' actions were not part of a conspiracy but a brand protection strategy. No torts of malicious falsehood, inducing breach of contract, or malicious prosecution were made out, and no damages or injunctive/declaratory relief were warranted.

Source excerpt

• Termination of contract
• Trademark licensing
• Conspiracy
• Malicious falsehood
• Inducing breach of contract
• Malicious prosecution

Read case analysis

Abudantia BV v Fastron Ltd & Anor

Abudantia BV v Fastron Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 234 (Comm) (10 February 2025)

Commercial Court held the trademark licensing agreement expired at the end of the initial term, rejecting renewal, termination-sum, conspiracy, and tort claims.

• Joint venture termination
• Trademark licensing
• Conspiracy to injure by unlawful means
• Malicious falsehood
• Breach of contract
• Declaratory and injunctive relief

Read case analysis

Virgin Aviation TM Limited & Anor v Alaska Airlines Inc

The Licence, properly construed, requires Alaska to pay the Minimum Royalty each financial year regardless of actual use of the Virgin Brand. Clause 3.7 does not override the obligation to pay the Minimum Royalty; it only allows Alaska to operate without using the Brand and without paying usage-based royalties, but not to avoid the Minimum Royalty, which is a flat fee for the rights granted.

Source excerpt

• Contractual interpretation
• Trademark licensing
• Minimum royalty payments

Read case analysis

Virgin Enterprises Limited v Brightline Holdings LLC

Brightline failed to prove that, as of the relevant dates, the Virgin brand had ceased to be a brand of international high repute, that the Marks were no longer of high quality status and synonymous with the Purpose and Brand Values, or that continued use of the Marks would be materially damaging to Brightline's reputation or business value. The statistical evidence, expert analysis, and factual context did not support Brightline's entitlement to terminate under clause 12.2(a).

Source excerpt

• Repudiatory breach
• Trademark licensing
• Contractual interpretation
• Damages for breach of contract

Read case analysis

Virgin Aviation TM Ltd & Anor v Alaska Airlines Inc (Formerly Virgin America Inc)

Virgin Aviation TM Ltd & Anor v Alaska Airlines Inc (Formerly Virgin America Inc) [2024] EWCA Civ 622 (11 June 2024)

The Court of Appeal held that Alaska Airlines must pay the Licence’s Minimum Royalty each financial year, even if it stops using the Virgin Brand.

• Contractual interpretation
• Trademark licensing
• Minimum royalty payments
• Commercial contracts
• Contractual-interpretation
• Trademark-licensing

Read case analysis

Virgin Enterprises Ltd v Brightline Holdings LLC

Virgin Enterprises Ltd v Brightline Holdings LLC [2023] EWHC 2240 (Comm) (12 October 2023)

The court held Brightline was not entitled to terminate the trademark licence under clause 12.2(a); the purported termination was a repudiatory breach.

• Repudiatory breach
• Trademark licensing
• Contract interpretation
• Termination clauses
• Damages
• Contract-interpretation

Read case analysis

Virgin Aviation TM Ltd v Alaska Airlines Inc

Virgin Aviation TM Ltd v Alaska Airlines Inc [2023] EWHC 322 (Comm) (16 February 2023)

The High Court held that Alaska must pay the Current TMLA Minimum Royalty even if it stops using the Virgin marks, and that no pro-rata reduction applies.

• Trademark licensing
• Minimum royalty payments
• Contract interpretation
• Aviation regulation
• Contract-interpretation
• Trademark-licensing

Read case analysis

The Trademark Licensing Co Ltd & Anr v Leofelis SA & Ors

The Trademark Licensing Co Ltd & Anr v Leofelis SA & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1533 (11 October 2012)

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s challenge and refused permission to amend, noting that amendment would prejudice the limited damages claim allowed below.

• Trademark licensing
• Damages
• Appeal procedure
• Trademark-licensing
• Appeal-procedure

Read case analysis

The Trademark Licensing Co Ltd & Anr v Leofelis SA & Ors

Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused permission to amend, leaving the High Court decision undisturbed.

• Trademark licensing
• Appeal procedure
• Appeal-procedure
• Intellectual-property
• Trademark-law

Read case analysis