Lappet Manufacturing Company v London Textile Industries [2022] EWHC 1412 (Ch)
This was a trade mark action concerning a sign in Arabic script applied to headscarves known as ‘yashmaghs’.
The principal issue at this interim hearing concerned the applicability to a claim for trade mark infringement of the prohibition in paragraph 2.1 of Practice Direction 7A against issuing low-value claims in the High Court: “Proceedings (whether for damages or for a specified sum) may not be started in the High Court unless the value of the claim is more than £100,000.”
The claim for trade mark infringement sought in the alternative remedies of an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits. The Claim Form was issued in the main Intellectual Property List of the High Court, but neither the Claim Form nor the Particulars of Claim stated that the value of the claim was in excess of £100,000. The Defendants contended that the Claim Form was issued contrary to paragraph 2.1 of Practice Direction 7A.
The Court held that paragraph 2.1 of Practice Direction 7A applies only to money claims. Since a claim for an inquiry or an account in the alternative is not a money claim (see Lifestyle Equities v SportsDirect.com [2016] EWHC 2092 (Ch)), the prohibition did not apply, and the Claim Form was properly issued in the High Court [paragraphs 26-47].
At the relief hearing ([2022] EWHC 2158 (Ch)) Adam Johnson J considered the application of the new guideline hourly rates for solicitors to specialist intellectual property proceedings, finding that “a departure from the Guideline Rates is justified on the basis of the long-established principle that specialist solicitors in specialist areas of activity should recover an uplift to reflect that specialism, where that is justified in the circumstances..”.
Christopher Hall represented the Defendants.