There had been a contractual licence to use names and trademarks for sports shoes. An earlier action between the parties had been stayed on the terms scheduled to a Tomlin order, which provided for Inter-Footwear to pay andpound;105,000 in three instalments and to have a licence (partly exclusive and partly non-exclusive) to use the names and marks. If any instalment was not paid on the due date, the whole unpaid balance became due at once and the licensor could determine the licence. There was a delay in payment of the second instalment and the licensor terminated the licence.
Held: The court had no jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture. Oliver LJ said that taken at its narrowest The Scaptrade case ‘may be said to establish no more than this: that the equitable jurisdiction to relieve against forfeiture does not extend to a time charter not being a charter by demise. There is, however, the more general proposition to be derived from it, that, even where the primary object of the insertion of a forfeiture clause may be said to be to secure the payment of money or the performance of some other obligation, the equitable jurisdiction does not extend to contracts which do not involve the transfer or creation of proprietary or possessory rights.’ There is a need for certainty in commercial contracts and the court doubted whether the licensor’s right to terminate the licence in the event of default could be primarily a security for the payment of money: ‘This is sufficient to dispose of the appeal, but, in fact, there appears to us to be another reason why the equitable jurisdiction to grant relief could not apply to a case such as this. The case is one of contract only and, in so far as there were any rights created or transferred which could be described as ‘proprietary’, they were rights which rested only in contract and to that extent distinguishable from the legal estate created by the grant of a lease or a mortgage. Assuming that relief were capable of being granted, effectively it could be granted only by compelling the plaintiffs to re-grant the permission which had been revoked. An exclusive licence to use a trade mark creates no estate, although it enables the licensee to obtain an injunction if the licensor, in breach of contract, seeks to use the mark in competition with him. Thus, effectively, the licensee applying for relief from forfeiture is in exactly the same position as the charterer in [The Scaptrade].’
Oliver LJ
[1984] 1 WLR 776
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co AB v Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana (The Scaptrade) HL 1983
The House considered giving relief from forfeiture where an owner had justifiably withdrawn his vessel in accordance with the terms of the charter.
Held: A withdrawal clause under a time charter, exercised on the ground of the charterer’s . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Sport International Bussum BV v Inter-Footwear Ltd HL 2-Jan-1984
A contractual licence was granted to use names and trademarks for sports shoes. An earlier action between the parties had been stayed on the terms scheduled to a Tomlin order, which provided for Inter-Footwear to pay a sum in instalments and to have . .
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Cited – Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading Sa v TMT Asia Ltd CA 15-Feb-2010
The parties had settled their disagreement, but now disputed the interpretation of the settlement. The defendant sought to be allowed to give in evidence correspondence leading up to the settlement which had been conducted on a without prejudice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.230289
