Fendi Italia Srl & Ors v Rolo Fashion Limited & Anor

Decision date: 9 July 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] EWHC 1703 (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 was a damages inquiry after default judgment that the defendants sold counterfeit Fendi goods. The court quantified lost profits at £200,000 using substitutive assumptions based on defendants' income and average selling price, applied the user principle to remaining infringing sales to award a minimum royalty of £13,000, and rejected claims for reputational loss and any additional award under Regulation 3. Aggregate damages were set at £213,000.

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 disclosure is incomplete, the court may make reasonable substitutive assumptions rather than favouring the disclosing party; in quantifying infringing sales the court may use the defendants' income divided by the defendants' average selling price (rather than the claimant's retail price). The user principle can be applied in trade mark cases to compensate for infringing sales that did not cause lost sales or reputational harm, provided there is an evidential basis for an appropriate royalty.

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 notes Jacob LJ's caution in Reed about not automatically applying the user principle, and observes that allegations of deliberate infringement under Regulation 3 do not by themselves justify an additional award absent evidence of unfair profits or other prejudice. The court also commented that plain-text exports of WhatsApp without images or deleted content may be relevant to assessing disclosure sufficiency.

Warning

- The provided chunk contains repeated passages and duplicated text. The provided notes contain repeated and duplicated passages; they may be materially incomplete.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML