Background
This consequentials judgment followed the court’s June 2026 liability judgment in a dispute concerning the Naurex trade marks, website materials and other copyright works. M L Technology had succeeded on trade-mark infringement for a limited period after the expiry of an implied licence, but other claims—including passing off, joint tortfeasorship and the website copyright claim—failed or produced only limited relief.
The parties returned to court to address financial relief, disclosure, injunctive and related relief, and costs. M L Technology sought a further inquiry into trade-mark damages, supported by additional disclosure and potentially expert evidence. BEAT argued that damages should be assessed immediately and suggested that a reasonable licence fee would not exceed £50,000.
The Court’s Holding
The court declined to fix trade-mark damages immediately because the existing evidence was insufficient for a fair evidence-based assessment. It ordered a streamlined procedure to determine the reasonable licence fee, limited to a one-day hearing, with short statements of case and restricted factual evidence. It prohibited further disclosure and expert evidence, finding both unnecessary and disproportionate. The timetable allowed time for negotiation or alternative dispute resolution.
On copyright, the court found that BEAT had not used website works owned by M L Technology beyond the reasonable-notice period, so no infringement arose on that basis. It conditionally stated that, if this conclusion were wrong, damages would have been assessed summarily at £1,000. On costs, the court held that neither side was the overall commercial winner: each had prevailed on some issues but fallen substantially short of its principal objectives after incurring disproportionate expense. It therefore made no order as to costs, requiring each side to bear its own costs of the proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A successful intellectual-property claimant is not automatically entitled to a full damages inquiry when the likely recovery would make that procedure disproportionate.
- Where the record cannot support an immediate damages estimate, the court may order a streamlined assessment while refusing further disclosure and expert evidence.
- Partial success does not necessarily identify an overall winner for costs, particularly when both sides fail on major issues and incur costs grossly disproportionate to the value obtained.
Why It Matters
The judgment illustrates the High Court’s willingness to control the cost of post-liability proceedings in intellectual-property litigation. Even though M L Technology established limited trade-mark infringement, the court tailored the damages process to the likely value of a hypothetical licence and warned that a claim approaching £1 million was unrealistic on the available material.
It also underscores that costs turn on practical and commercial success, not merely whether a party obtained some liability finding or monetary relief. Here, modest victories on both sides, extensive failed claims and approximately £4 million in combined costs justified leaving each party to pay its own way.