BUSINESS & PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (Ch)
7 Rolls Building Fetter Lane London EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
SHAZAM PRODUCTIONS LIMITED |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
(1) ONLY FOOLS THE DINING EXPERIENCE LIMITED (2) IMAGINATION WORKSHOP PTY LIMITED (a Company incorporated in Australia) (3) ALISON GAY POLLARD-MANSERGH (4) PETER GORDON MANSERGH (5) KATHERINE MARY GILLHAM |
Defendants |
____________________
THOMAS ST QUINTIN (instructed by Brandsmiths solicitors) for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th
Defendants
The 4th Defendant acting as a litigant in person
Hearing date: 3 June 2020
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment was handed down without attendances required at 10.30am on Monday 19 October 2020.
Master Teverson:
(1) each script used in the Sitcom;
(2) The body of scripts for the Sitcom taken together, which collectively establish the characters, stories and imaginary "world" of Only Fools and Horses;
(3) the principal characters featuring in the Sitcom ("the Characters"), namely Del Boy, Rodney, Marlene, Cassandra, Uncle Albert, Boycie, Trigger and DCI Roy Slater; and
(4) the lyrics of the opening theme of the Sitcom.
"The IPEC is a court with a special jurisdiction for intellectual property cases, the successor to the Patents County Court. The rationale for the creation of the IPEC and its predecessor was to provide access to justice for individuals, and small and medium sized enterprises, who would not be able to pay the costs normally associated with intellectual property litigation in the High Court under the CPR. The special rules which govern the IPEC seek to achieve this objective by providing for a highly focused, intensively case-managed procedure. Two significant differences from the general procedure under the CPR should be noted. First, the rule about statements of case in the IPEC requires a party to plead "all the facts and arguments" on which he relies, in contrast to pleading only material facts: see CPR 63.20. Secondly, the default position is that, unless the judge orders them at the case management conference ("CMC"), there are to be no witness statements, experts' reports or cross-examination at trial. Only in exceptional circumstances will the court allow additional matters to be relied on which are not provided for by the order made at the CMC".
"When deciding whether to order a transfer of proceedings to or from [the IPEC] the court will consider whether-
(1) a party can only afford to bring or defend the claim in [the IPEC]; and(2) the claim is appropriate to be determined by [the IPEC] having regard in particular to-(a) the value of the claim (including the value of an injunction);(b) the complexity of the issues; and(c) the estimated length of the trial.
Para 9.2 reads:-
"Where the court orders proceedings to be transferred to or from [the IPEC] it may-
(1) specify terms for such a transfer; and-(2) award reduced or no costs where it allows the claimant to withdraw the claim."
"Unsurprisingly, applications to transfer into or out of IPEC rarely concern such cases. More characteristically, one side insists that the case will take four, five or six days, whereas the other side has no doubt that the trial can easily be completed within two. In assessing the time the trial is likely to take, the court must take into account the extent to which the proceedings can fairly be case-managed to focus the issues between the parties, which will include preventing a proliferation of issues which are marginal at best and may even have been raised to improve the chances of having the case transferred out of IPEC or to resist it being transferred into IPEC."