Yellow Van London Company v Driver
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE HACON
Areas of Law
- Intellectual Property Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Judge Hacon presided over a committal application against Mr. Raynor for breach of an injunction issued by Arnold J on 12 November 2013, which prohibited trademark infringement and unauthorized reproduction of work. Despite being served with the order, Mr. Raynor committed several violations through his use of various domain names and trading names. He admitted to some breaches but argued partial rectification. The court determined that his compliance was insufficient and imposed a £10,000 fine and costs, advising that future offences could result in imprisonment.
Judgment
JUDGE HACON : This is an application for committal of the defendant as a result of alleged breach of the Order of Arnold J dated 12 November 2013.
Included in that Order was an injunction in the following form:
"3. The Defendant shall not (whether acting by himself or through any other person, agent, firm, company or howsoever otherwise) do any of the following acts:
make, authorise or expose for sale, sell, import or howsoever otherwise deal in the course of trade with any storage, van or delivery services or similar services by reference to the Trade Marks and/or the Registered Trade Mark and/or any similar names and/or logos or get-ups which infringe any of the Trade Marks;
howsoever otherwise infringe the Claimant's Rights in the Trade Marks;
howsoever pass off or attempt to pass off any service not provided by or on behalf of and/or under licence from the claimant or associated in the course of trade with the Claimant as and for such services;
reproduce the Claimant's Work or any substantial part of it;
issue to the public, sell, offer for sale or in the course of business distribute any material bearing or containing a reproduction of the Claimant's Work or any substantial part of it or; and/or
authorise, cause, procure, enable or assist any other person, firm or company to do any of the acts aforesaid.
4. The Defendant shall, within two calendar months of the date of this Order, destroy upon oath all goods, materials and articles in the possession , custody or control of the Defendant the use of which would in the course of trades constitute an infringement of the aforementioned injunctions or any of them and shall provide confirmation of the same in the form of an affidavit signed by the defendant within seven days thereof."
I am satisfied from the evidence that the Order was served on the defendant pursuant to the rules requiring such service and I have also seen the third witness statement of Mr Sherliker dated 16 th July 2014 regarding service of the application notice for the claimant’s claim of contempt and the evidence.
I am satisfied from the witness statement of Mr Sherliker that the application notice and the evidence in support of the committal were served personally on Mr Raynor.
The evidence for breach of the Order of Arnold J by Mr Raynor is contained in the second affidavit of Mr Sherliker dated 11 th July 2014.
In that affidavit Mr Sherliker sets out a number of ways in which Mr Raynor has acted in breach of t