Alfrank Designs Ltd v Exclusive (UK) Ltd & Anor
Decision date: 18 May 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] EWHC 1372 (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 is an IPEC damages inquiry following Alfrank's claim that Exclusive sold infringing tables (Modena/Opus copies of Alfrank's Canberra/Strasbourg). The judge rejected an alleged oral China deal with retailer Harveys, found that 20% of Exclusive's infringing table sales caused Alfrank to lose one-for-one table sales (with associated convoyed goods recoverable in the pleaded proportions), and awarded a reasonable royalty of £100 per table for the remaining 80% of infringing sales. Parties were left to agree the arithmetic.
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 loss of convoyed goods is claimed, the claimant must prove an objective causative link in the purchaser's mind between the purchase of the infringing product and the other items; and where infringements did not cause lost sales, damages by way of a reasonable royalty are assessed by reference to a hypothetical willing-licensor/willing-licensee negotiation, which may take into account profits attributable to driven/convoyed sales.
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 observes (by way of broader factual reasoning) that consumer choice is often driven by choice of table style, which commonly drives purchases of matching occasional furniture, and that retailer loyalty and existing supplier relationships are important in assessing whether retailers would have switched suppliers in the counterfactual.
Warning
This chunk contains extensive repeated material and duplicated paragraphs; care needed to avoid double-counting. Notes contain repeated material and duplicated paragraphs; they may be noisy and not necessarily comprehensive.