The High Court has ordered discovery in a trade mark dispute between Nutrimedical B.V., Aymes International Limited and Nualtra Limited, while postponing a separate request for documents concerning how the proceedings were planned and conducted.
Nutrimedical had previously held the EU trade mark NUTRIPLETE. Nualtra had supplied and distributed medical nutritional supplements under the signs NUTRIPLEN and NUTRIPLEN PROTEIN. After the proceedings began, Nutrimedical licensed and assigned the marks to Aymes International. Nualtra’s applications to register NUTRIPLEN, NUTRIPLEN PROTEIN and NUTRIPLEN SMOOTHIE had been rejected by the then OHIM following opposition by Nutrimedical; one appeal was also rejected. Those were prior decisions, not findings made in this discovery judgment.
The underlying claim concerns alleged trade mark infringement. Nualtra also counterclaimed against Aymes International, alleging unlawful interference with its trade or business and abuse of civil process. The court recounted that Aymes admitted responsibility for a July 2015 anonymous letter sent to hundreds of UK medical practices. After an English High Court Norwich Pharmacal order, Aymes also acknowledged responsibility for a November 2014 email circulated to NHS employees. Other alleged conduct, including pressure on Nualtra’s packaging manufacturer and organised hoax complaints, remained allegations described by the judgment.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ requests for documents about confusion between the products and the marks, and about alleged efforts to procure a breach of Nualtra’s packaging contract with Even Santé International. It rejected Nualtra’s proposed date limits on those categories, finding no suitable temporal boundary on the reasoning advanced.
It also granted Nualtra’s requests for documents held by each plaintiff relating to Nualtra’s business and products within the respective periods specified in the requests. The judge considered that Nualtra had set out a sufficiently detailed prima facie case of alleged wrongdoing to obtain discovery, applying principles discussed in earlier cases. The court did not decide whether the alleged wrongdoing had been proved.
A further request sought Aymes documents about planning, instituting or conducting these proceedings. The court adjourned consideration of that category under the Rules of the Superior Courts. It cited proportionality and concern that disclosure could give Nualtra an unfair litigation advantage. The matter was to be listed for prompt case management by the judge in charge of the Commercial List. The judgment did not determine the trade mark infringement claim or the counterclaim.