Link Up Mitaka Ltd (t/a Thebigword) v Language Empire Ltd & Anor

Decision date: 9 October 2018

Neutral citation: [2018] EWHC 2633 (IPEC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

The claimant, trading as TheBigWord, obtained default judgment for trade mark infringement and passing off against two defendants who operated infringing websites using its sign. At a damages inquiry the court found the websites were live from 1 June 2014 to 31 March 2017, rejected much of the second defendant’s evidence as unreliable, treated the disclosed enquiry list YZ8 as a cherry-picked subset, and extrapolated lost profits. Damages of £142,044 were awarded to the claimant and prior orders for transfer of the domains remain in place.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium

Where a defendant’s evidence is internally inconsistent and contradicted by documentary material, the court may reject that evidence and draw adverse inferences about concealment and the likely receipt/conversion of enquiries. Where disclosed enquiry data is incomplete or selectively produced, the court may use that data as a starting point, extrapolate to reflect likely true volume, and apply an uplift when assessing lost profits.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The judgment indicates (obiter) that active efforts to avoid disclosure and close communications with third‑party consultants can justify inferences that a defendant sought to conceal profitable enquiries, and that changes in web traffic to a claimant’s site after takedown of infringing sites can provide useful quantitative evidence of diverted business.

Warning

quality:contains_copyright_notice

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML