Crafts Group LLC v M/S Indeutsch International & Anor
Decision date: 26 July 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] EWHC 1914 (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 supplemental judgment explains and expands the Main Judgment concerning the court's jurisdiction under the Trade Mark Regulation after UK exit and the effect of article 132(1) EUTMR. The court held it retained jurisdiction as an EU trade mark court for proceedings begun before IP Completion Day, and that article 132(1) required a stay of the claimant's threats claim (so far as it related to the EU Chevron mark) and related revocation/invalidity proceedings while an EUIPO cancellation was pending. The judge refused permission to appeal and provided expanded reasons and case-management grounds for the stays.
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 proceedings relating to EU trade marks were instituted before IP Completion Day, national courts designated as EU trade mark courts continue to have jurisdiction under the Withdrawal Agreement and the implementing domestic transitional provisions; and article 124(a) of the Trade Mark Regulation (as interpreted) includes threatened infringement actions (where permitted by national law), thereby engaging article 132(1) and requiring national courts to stay domestic proceedings concerning the same EU mark while an EUIPO action is pending, absent special grounds.
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 endorses that a trial judge should give additional reasons if a complaint about lack of reasons is raised and may refuse permission to appeal after remedying any defect; and that case-management reasons can independently justify a stay of proceedings in addition to EUTMR-based obligations.