Cassie Creations Ltd v Blackmore & Anor (Rev 1)
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR. RICHARD SPEARMAN QC
Areas of Law
- Intellectual Property Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves disputes over intellectual property threats between two parties marketing cake stands on eBay. Defendants issued notifications to eBay, which led to the claimants' products being delisted. The court had to determine whether these actions constituted actionable threats and whether they were groundless. Several applications for strike-out and summary judgments were considered, with the court ultimately deciding that these issues need to be fully tried. The court also dealt with issues of joint liability and the applicability of certain statutory protections. The proceedings were found to be neither disproportionate nor an abuse of process.
Judgment
MR. RICHARD SPEARMAN QC:
I will give my rulings straightaway. Because this judgment is being given ex tempore and at the end of the court day – and although I have had quite a lot of material from the parties and quite a lot of submissions – they may be rather briefer than would otherwise be the case. If the parties require expanded reasons, I will endeavour to give them in due course.
In this case there are three applications before the court. The first in time is the defendants’ application dated 13 th October 2013 to strike out the particulars of claim. That is on the grounds that are set out in CPR rule 3.4(2)(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim or CPR rule 3.4(2)(b) that the claim is an abuse of process. The defendants also have an application for summary judgment pursuant to CPR rule 24.2 on the grounds that the claimants have no real prospect of succeeding on the claim, and there is no other compelling reason for a trial.
The second in time is the claimants’ application dated 4 th April 2014 for summary judgment on various aspects of the claim that the claimants bring, and for an order that the defendants should provide further information, which is a matter that I will deal with separately after I have given these rulings.
The third in time is the defendants’ application dated 16 th April 2014 to strike out the claimants’ application notice, essentially on the same grounds as the defendants’ application to strike out the particulars of claim. In my view, the third of those applications probably adds nothing to the issues that are already raised by the first two applications.
As the arguments have unfolded, the central issues that I have to decide are the following five issues:
(i) First of all, there is the question of whether the defendants have made threats against the claimants in accordance with section 26 of the Registered Designs Act 1949 as amended and section 253 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Those threats are said to arise in a notice that was sent by the first defendant (and I will come to the details in a moment) to eBay and in a letter that was sent to the claimants. The notice was in a form used by eBay called “Notice of Claimed Infringement – Statutory Declaration”, or “NOCI” for short, and was sent pursuant to eBay’s Verified Rights Owner (“VeRO”) system. (In fact, I think there may have been two notices, relating to two different registered designs, b