Ifejika v Ifejika & Anor
Decision date: 31 July 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] EWHC 2625 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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
Victor sued Charles Ifejika for infringement of an unregistered design right in the undercut feature of an AMO contact-lens product; the judge found infringement limited to that undercut and estimated about 510,000 infringing units were sold. From estimated gross and net profits the court apportioned 2% to the infringing feature and awarded Victor £15,800 (after a modest deduction for packing); the possibility of a licence of right did not reduce that award.
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
The court accepted that where primary sales records are incomplete or inconsistent a broad-brush estimate of sales may be made from available VAT and supplier documentation for the purposes of an account of profits, and that apportionment of profits to an infringing design feature can be assessed by the court on a provisional, evaluative basis taking into account functional importance as well as physical size.
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 judge noted that a supplier purchase order can indicate timing of a supplier pricing change but may not reconcile with VAT summaries, and that a defendant may be treated as able to give an undertaking to accept a licence of right up to final order, with the court able to assess likely licence terms when considering limits on recovery.