Yellow Van Company Ltd v Driver
2014
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE HACON
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Commercial Law
- Intellectual Property Law
2014
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, Edward Peter Rayner sought to set aside a default judgment issued against him for failing to acknowledge service and submit a defence. The claimant, a business providing household removals, claimed Rayner used their trading names and logos, infringing on their trademarks and passing off his business as theirs. The court dismissed Rayner's application due to a lack of compelling reasons or strong defence arguments, noting significant delays in his application process.
JUDGMENT
JUDGE HACON :
This is an application by the defendant, Edward Peter Rayner, to set aside a judgment in default of acknowledgement of service and defence. The order was made by ARNOLD J on (there is a court stamp recording the date as) 16 November 2013.
The claimant conducted a business providing a service by way of household removals and other transport of household items. The Particulars of Claim allege that in 2009 the business was started and at that time was conducted by a partnership consisting of Mr Luke Terry and the defendant, Mr Rayner. The Particulars go on to allege that in October 2010 a company known as The Big Yellow Van Company Limited was incorporated. The business including the goodwill was assigned to that company. The claimant company is said to have been incorporated in July 2012 and at that time the business and goodwill was transferred to the claimant from The Big Yellow Van Company Limited, and the latter company was then dissolved. It is also alleged that in July of 2012 the claimant commissioned a design company to create a logo and that copyright in the logo was assigned to the claimant by a written agreement dated 8 August 2012. It also seems to be the case that on 15 February 2013 the claimant applied for a registered trademark in the form of a logo for goods and services in classes 35 and 39.
So the claimant claims ownership of goodwill in the trading name ‘The Big Yellow Van Company’, the name ‘The Yellow Van Company’ and in two devices, that is to say, the logos, one with The Big Yellow Van Company featured prominently and the other with The Yellow Van Company featured.
The Particulars of Claim allege that when The Big Yellow Van Company Limited was incorporated in October 2010 Mr Rayner declined to take shares in the company. Although he was not appointed a director he acted in that capacity and was accordingly a shadow director or a de facto director. Mr Terry was a named director of the company. It is alleged that in June 2012 Mr Rayner, the defendant, resigned from The Big Yellow Van Company Limited. In fact to put it more accurately it is alleged that he resigned from the claimant, but since it is earlier said the claimant was not incorporated until a month later in July 2012 I take that to be that he resigned from The Big Yellow Van Company Limited. Whichever it was, the ties were severed with Mr Terry at around that time.
It is said that in June 2012 Mr Rayner set up his own competing business under two