With Wise Limited v Wise Payments Limited
Decision date: 17 July 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] EWHC 1809 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
With Wise Limited sought costs after Wise Payments Limited withdrew a strike-out application that challenged With Wise’s separate 2024 trade mark revocation proceedings. HHJ Hacon had earlier refused permission to With Wise to amend its defence in related 2022 infringement proceedings to add a non‑use revocation plea because of delay and cost/benefit concerns. The strike‑out application was withdrawn after circulation of a draft judgment in the 2022 Proceedings; the court refused to order off‑scale costs immediately and reserved the question of costs of the abandoned application to be determined after trial, giving With Wise leave to renew an application for off‑scale costs then.
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 registered trade mark becomes vulnerable to non‑use revocation at the five‑year point, an allegation of non‑use should ordinarily be raised promptly once it can reasonably be done; unexplained delay can justify refusal to allow an amendment. In IPEC the court may assess permission to amend by reference to a costs/benefit test and the potential impact on the court’s fixed timetables.
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 suggests that a party refused permission to amend may commence a freestanding revocation action and that the court may consider expedition for such a new action in due course. It also indicates that costs of interlocutory applications that are withdrawn can properly be reserved until a substantive trial if deciding them earlier would pre‑empt issues to be tried.
Warning
Chunk contains repeated and duplicated passages which make the narrative somewhat repetitive. notes contain some repetition and duplication and may be incomplete.