Lumos Skincare Ltd v Sweet Squared (UK) Ltd & others [2015] EWHC 1313 (IPEC)
This was the account of profits following the Claimant’s successful appeal to the Court of Appeal, which held that the Defendants’ sale of nail care products under the name LUMOS amounted to passing off and ordered the Defendants to account for their profits.
The Defendants (a US manufacturer and two UK distributors) had admitted participation in a common design under which the US manufacturer produced LUMOS products and supplied them to the UK distributors for onward sales. On the account of profits, the US manufacturer argued that it need not account for its profits arising out of its sales to the UK distributor, because such sales did not themselves pass off. The judge rejected this argument, agreeing with the Claimant that the Court of Appeal’s order entitled the Claimant to recover the profits that each defendant had accrued from the common design.
The Defendants also argued that they had not made any profit. Chris successfully argued to the contrary and the Claimant was awarded £57,000.
Chris appeared as sole counsel on the account of profits. He previously appeared as junior counsel with Richard Hacon (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal and at trial in the Patents County Court.
Lumos Skincare Ltd v Sweet Squared (UK) Ltd & others [2015] EWHC 1313 (IPEC)