The National Guild of Removers and Storers Ltd v Statham & Ors
2014
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE HACON
Areas of Law
- Intellectual Property Law
2014
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves the National Guild of Removers and Storers (NGRS) claiming damages from the Stathams' unauthorized representation as NGRS members after their membership ceased in 2010. The court addressed issues regarding the legitimacy of the damages based on the ‘user principle.’ The defendants argued that the demanded £26,866.77 damages were unjustified due to their prompt removal of the references and limited exposure. Ultimately, the court ordered the defendants to pay £5,400 plus interest, rejecting the defendants' claims of unjustifiable penalties and the inapplicability of the user principle.
Judgment
Judge Hacon :
Introduction
This is an inquiry as to damages following the order of Birss J dated 28 November 2013 in which he entered summary judgment in favour of the Claimant (“NGRS”).
The claimant is a trade body which both represents and provides services to its members, firms and individuals in the removal and storage business. The defendants (“the Stathams”), who are husband and wife, run a removal and storage business in Wrexham, North Wales.
NGRS’s claim against the Stathams was for passing off by reason of two representations by the defendants that they were members of NGRS after they had ceased to be so.
NGRS claims by way of damages the fee that it says it would have charged had the defendants been licensed over the period of the unauthorised representation: £26,866.77.
The Stathams say (a) the two representations complained of were in a listing on a trade website overlooked until receipt of the letter before action, (b) the relevant pages of the website were only ever viewed by four unique users, all on the same day (25 March 2013), and these users and thus the only people who ever saw the pages were NGRS’s employees and its lawyers and (c) the Stathams arranged for the removal of the representations on the same day they received the letter before action, 15 April 2013. The Stathams argue that a payment of nearly £27,000 in those circumstances is wholly unjustified.
NGRS does not accept that the only people who ever saw the representations complained of were its lawyers and employees. In any event, NGRS argues, it makes no difference: the Stathams must pay the going rate.
The trial was conducted on written evidence.
Background facts
The Stathams’ business was a member of NGRS from 2001 until 13 October 2010. The fact of their membership was indicated on their business papers, their vehicles, their own website and in other advertising. When the membership ceased, references to membership of NGRS were all removed save for the two complained of.
There is a website operated by a company based in St Albans (“Really Moving”) which allows those moving home or business to search for providers of conveyancing, survey or removal services. The address of the website is (“ www.reallymoving.com the Really Moving website”). The Stathams had a listing on the Really Moving website which incorporated two references to their business, in each case identifying the business as a member of NGRS. The Stathams say that they overlooked this listin