Lumos Skincare Ltd v Sweet Squared Ltd & Ors

Decision date: 19 May 2015

Neutral citation: [2015] EWHC 1313 (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

This case concerns an account of profits after the Court of Appeal found a likelihood of confusion (passing off) by defendants selling nail products under the LUMOS mark. The judge held the supplier (Second Defendant) liable to account for profits attributable to a common design to pass off, excluded non‑UK sales from the account, accepted certain manufacturing costs and specific allowed deductions, and disallowed general trade‑show/catalogue overhead allocations. Net disgorgement ordered: First/Third Defendants £24,461.48 (jointly and severally) and Second Defendant £17,842.66.

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

Where defendants are jointly liable for passing off pursuant to a common design, profits from supplies made in furtherance of that design are recoverable on an account of profits even if the supplying transaction was not itself a primary act of passing off; and an account is territorially limited to sales within the jurisdiction where goodwill was proved, so non‑UK sales are excluded.

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

Accounting software extracts (e.g. Netsuite) can suffice to prove direct manufacturing costs for modest amounts and absent suggestion of manipulation, though fuller explanation is preferable; and pre‑litigation invoices for goods can be included in an account if the goods were subsequently put on the market as part of the tortious common design.