Speechworks Ltd v Speechworks International Incorporated [2000] ScotCS 200 (14 July 2000)

Speechworks Ltd v Speechworks International Incorporated [2000] ScotCS 200 (14 July 2000)

The pursuers have a prima facie case based on their registered trade mark and the defenders' actions are capable of infringement, but the balance of convenience does not favour granting interim interdict. The defenders are a substantial international business with established use and goodwill in the mark, and would suffer significant harm from an interdict, while the pursuers' business is nascent and local. The defenders can compensate the pursuers for any damages, but the reverse is not true. Therefore, interim interdict is refused.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 200
Parties
Pursuer: Speechworks Limited; Defender: Speechworks International Incorporated
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Interim Interdict Application in Trademark Infringement Action / Motion for Interim Interdict Prior to Lodging of Defences
Outcome
Interim interdict refused
Legal Topics
Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Interim Interdict, Balance of Convenience
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Trademark Infringement Passing Off Interim Interdict Balance of Convenience

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Speechworks Limited

Pursuer

Speechworks International Incorporated

Defender

Procedural Posture

Interim Interdict Application in Trademark Infringement Action / Motion for Interim Interdict Prior to Lodging of Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers have a prima facie case for trademark infringement against the defenders' use of 'SpeechWorks' in the UK
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting interim interdict to restrain the defenders' use of the mark
  3. 3 Whether the defenders' use of their own name is protected under section 11(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers have a prima facie case based on their registered trade mark and the defenders' actions are capable of infringement, but the balance of convenience does not favour granting interim interdict. The defenders are a substantial international business with established use and goodwill in the mark, and would suffer significant harm from an interdict, while the pursuers' business is nascent and local. The defenders can compensate the pursuers for any damages, but the reverse is not true. Therefore, interim interdict is refused.

Court Disposition

Interim interdict refused

Orders

  • Motion for interim interdict refused