Kohler Mira Ltd v Bristan Group Ltd
Decision date: 13 June 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] EWHC 1931 (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 damages after a liability judgment that found Bristan had infringed Kohler’s UK unregistered design rights in three shower models. Bristan sought to raise the s.233(1) “innocence” defence for the first time at the damages inquiry but the court refused leave and, on the merits, found the defence failed. Kohler’s lost-profits claim was held speculative and the court awarded damages by way of a reasonable royalty of 6.7% of the retail price on all 63,204 infringing units; claims for extra promotional costs and a 10% moral-prejudice uplift were rejected.
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
The judgment establishes that a defendant should normally plead the s.233(1) innocence defence at trial and may be refused leave to raise it for the first time at a damages inquiry for reasons of finality and case management; where lost-profit causation and quantum are speculative, damages may instead be assessed by a reasonable royalty on infringing sales (here set at 6.7% of the price).
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 observed that a defendant encountering an industrial article will ordinarily have reason to believe a design right may subsist, and that owners of unregistered design rights are not required to mark articles to preserve damages. It also noted that “moral prejudice” under the Enforcement Directive is limited to non-economic prejudice and will arise only in particular cases, with loss of exclusivity often being an economic rather than moral loss.