Case management decision in trade mark infringement action, on the extent to which the court should give permission for a survey to be conducted, and for evidence resulting from previous surveys to be admitted.
Held: Mann J gave the claimant permission to administer questionnaires to members of the public in the form attached to the order.
Mann J said: ‘In the case before me, as will appear, it is necessary to bear in mind the juridical basis of what it is that the court is doing when exercising its control. In my view it is doing (at least) the following:
i) So far as a party is going to seek to put expert evidence before the court, the court is exercising its power to control the amount and nature of expert evidence in order to make sure the expert evidence is proper evidence, admissible, and proportionate.
ii) So far as a party seeks to put in the actual answers to questions, the court is ensuring the evidence is admissible and probative.
iii) So far as the court is controlling the calling of live witnesses obtained as a result of some form of survey evidence (so-called witness collection exercises) it is again ensuring that the evidence is admissible and probative. In particular, it is acting to prevent a party seeking to call a witness whose evidence is going to be tainted to an unacceptable degree by the mechanism under which it is collected (an inappropriate question).
iv) In so doing, the court is ensuring that costs are not wasted and are proportionate. It is wrong for costs to be wasted in conducting hopeless surveys, for the other party to have to waste costs dealing with that evidence, and for court time to be wasted in dealing with it at trial.
v) When a court is acting in this capacity it must bear in mind that it is acting at some remove from the trial. If it disallows a survey it is concluding, short of a trial, that evidence which one party wishes to adduce should not be allowed in because it will be of no or insufficient value. In embarking on that exercise it must acknowledge that there will be cases in which it is not wholly clear that the evidence in question will be valueless. In those circumstances the right course may be not to bar the evidence or survey at the interim stage, but to allow it and to have more informed argument at the trial (or conceivably at another interim stage, provided that that is a cost-effective way of going about the matter).’
Judges:
Mann J
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 1038 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Directions – A and E Television Networks Llc and Another v Discovery Communications Europe Ltd ChD 1-Feb-2013
The claimants had operated the ‘History’ and associated variant TV channels and trade marks. The claimed that the defendant’s ‘Discovery History’ channels were in breach. The defendants challenged the validity of the trade marks. The court now . .
Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v Interflora Inc and Another CA 20-Nov-2012
The court gave guidance on the use of surveys in trials for passing off and trade mark infringement.
Lewison LJ reviewed the practice of conducting interviews and surveys in passing off cases: ‘The upshot of this review is that courts have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.434878