Tommy Hilfiger Europe -v- McGarry & ors [2008] IESC 36 (29 May 2008)

Tommy Hilfiger Europe -v- McGarry & ors [2008] IESC 36 (29 May 2008)

The Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction over the trade mark infringement claim as the value of the property right exceeded its statutory limit; thus, the High Court was the correct forum and the costs limitation in section 17(3) of the Courts Act 1981 did not apply. The trial judge's award of damages was within the range of similar cases and based on the evidence presented; there was no basis for an account of profits as the respondents did not exercise that option at trial. No material non-disclosure occurred in the ex parte application, and the trial judge acted within her discretion in awarding reserved costs.

Citation
[2008] IESC 36
Parties
Plaintiffs/respondents: Tommy Hilfiger Europe Inc. and Tommy Hilfiger Europe BV; Defendants/appellants: Derek McGarry trading as 'Lifejacket', Goodstock Limited and Lifejacket Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off, Damages, Costs, Jurisdiction
Intellectual Property Tort Trade Mark Infringement Passing Off Damages Costs Jurisdiction

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tommy Hilfiger Europe Inc. and Tommy Hilfiger Europe BV

Plaintiffs/respondents

Derek McGarry trading as 'Lifejacket', Goodstock Limited and Lifejacket Limited

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was correct in awarding costs to the respondents given the jurisdictional limits on damages and costs recovery.
  2. 2 Whether the damages awarded for trade mark infringement and passing off were appropriate and whether an account of profits should have been ordered.

Ratio Decidendi

The Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction over the trade mark infringement claim as the value of the property right exceeded its statutory limit; thus, the High Court was the correct forum and the costs limitation in section 17(3) of the Courts Act 1981 did not apply. The trial judge's award of damages was within the range of similar cases and based on the evidence presented; there was no basis for an account of profits as the respondents did not exercise that option at trial. No material non-disclosure occurred in the ex parte application, and the trial judge acted within her discretion in awarding reserved costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.

Orders

  • Damages of €15,000 to respondents upheld.
  • Injunctive and ancillary reliefs to respondents upheld.