Uwug Ltd & Anor v Ball (t/a Red)
Decision date: 9 December 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] EWHC 4019 (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 was a damages inquiry after a finding that Mr Ball infringed UWUG’s design right by selling frames to third parties. The claimant failed to prove UWUG would have bought further frames from Mr Ball, so lost-profit claims were rejected; instead damages were awarded on the user (royalty) principle at 10% of Mr Ball’s selling price for each infringing frame sold. Parties were ordered to calculate the total and return for an interest hearing.
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 a claimant cannot prove it was willing and able to purchase goods that the defendant sold, claims for lost profits based on diverted purchases will fail; contemporaneous negotiation documents, even if unsigned and never agreed, can be the best guide to the royalty the parties would have accepted in a hypothetical licence negotiation.
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 published accounts and cashflow statements can diverge and that cashflow difficulties may explain non-payment despite apparent asset levels. It also indicates that claims for future loss of business require a clear causal connection to the defendant’s infringement and evidence of an available alternative supply.
Warning
Some repetition in the chunk may make chronology harder to follow, but findings are clearly stated.