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 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: Relief was not available against the forfeiture of a mere contractual licences. As to the discussion of proprietoty or possessory right in Scaptrade: ‘Mr Wilson submitted that in the present case the licences to use the trade marks and names created proprietary and possessory rights in intellectual property. He admits, however, that so to hold would be to extend the boundaries of the authorities dealing with relief against forfeiture. I do not believe that the present is a suitable case in which to define the boundaries of the equitable doctrine of relief against forfeiture. It is sufficient that the appellants cannot bring themselves within the recognised boundaries and cannot establish an arguable case for the intervention of equity. The recognised boundaries do not include mere contractual licences and I can see no reason for the intervention of equity.’
Judges:
Lord Templeman
Citations:
[1984] 1 WLR 776, [1984] 2 All ER 321
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – 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The House considered giving relief from forfeiture where an owner had justifiably withdrawn his vessel in accordance with the terms of the charter.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 . .
Appeal from – Sport Internationaal Bussum BV v Inter-Footwear Ltd CA 1984
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Python (Monty) Pictures Ltd v Paragon Entertainment Corporation and Another ChD 21-May-1998
Where a copyright assignment was subject to the provisions of a side letter, a sub-assignee was subject to the same provisions even though he was not made aware of the existence of the side letter. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Intellectual Property, Equity
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187750