Shard Financial Media Ltd v Blue Moon Group Ltd & Anor
Decision date: 19 September 2018
Neutral citation: [2018] EWHC 2859 (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
This case concerned whether an oral settlement reached on 8 September 2011 required Blue Moon to assign a "Credit Today" trade mark application to Shard. The court found there was a binding oral agreement to settle the oppositions, adequate consideration in reciprocal withdrawal of claims, and an implied term that Blue Moon would take all steps necessary to effect the legal assignment. Summary judgment was granted for Shard, which was held to be equitable owner entitled to require legal assignment.
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: high
A binding oral settlement to withdraw opposing proceedings can constitute a binding contract where there is a meeting of minds and sufficient consideration in the mutual withdrawal of claims; where such a settlement includes agreement to assign a trade mark application, a term may be implied obliging the transferor to take all necessary steps to effect the legal assignment.
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 observed that filing or signing IPO form TM16 records change of ownership but is not itself a substitute for a written assignment, and that contemporaneous emails and conduct (such as filing TM16 and arranging withdrawals) are strong evidence of a concluded agreement.