Bei Yu Industrial Co v Nuby (UK) LLP & Anor

Decision date: 22 March 2022

Neutral citation: [2022] EWHC 652 (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

Bei Yu sued Nuby for infringement of a registered design in respect of a baby bath; Nuby conceded liability and the court held a hearing limited to an account of profits. The judge found Nuby must account for profits but is entitled, on the balance of probabilities, to deduct adjusted direct costs and a proportion of general overheads that would have been incurred selling non-infringing alternatives, using broad-brush apportionment methods (mostly sales-revenue based with a few exceptions). The court disallowed certain overhead items (eg consultancy costs and a bad-debt write-off) and awarded interest at Bank of England base rate.

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 defendant seeking deduction of general overheads in an account of profits must prove on the balance of probabilities that those overheads would have been incurred in selling non-infringing products; apportionment of general overheads is a pragmatic broad-brush exercise and the court may apply different bases (eg sales-revenue or product-count) to different overhead categories to achieve the least unrealistic result.

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 indicated it is unnecessary to investigate in excessive detail whether particular expense items were properly incurred before treating them as part of actual profits if they were paid and apparently unrecovered, and observed that sales-revenue apportionment, while pragmatic, can be inappropriate for overheads largely independent of sales value (eg website hosting, basic IT, stationery).

Warning

This chunk contains extensive repeated text and confidential financial figures; care required when extracting numbers (many details are redacted or duplicated).