Zino Davidoff SA v M & S Toiletries Ltd

[1] What I propose to do is to give my decision in relation to the matters before me and to explain why in fairly brief terms, reserving the right to revise the text if that is required by parties for the purposes of any possible appeal.

[8] He distinguished the case decided by Mr Justice Laddie on several grounds. First of all it was merely concerned with whether or not in an application for summary judgment the defenders had an arguable defence. Secondly, it was not expressly followed by Lord Kingarth in the Scottish case at a later date and of course it was based, at least to some extent, upon English law. It was also a judgment delivered before the Sebago judgment already referred to.

[9] He pointed out that although a main line taken by the defenders was that their immediate suppliers were suppliers from within the European Economic Area that, he submitted, did not deal properly with the point that was being made by the pursuers because the essence of the matter was that the pursuers had a right to protect their trademark against commercialisation and distribution by anyone who attempted to do so without their consent within the area. In all the circumstances he submitted that there was a prima facie case.

[13] In the circumstances I shall pronounce interim interdict in terms of Conclusions 1 and 2.