The Supreme Court has refused Montex Holdings Limited’s application to lift a stay on a costs order in its favour, while declining Diesel Spa’s separate application to stay payment of costs arising from its unsuccessful appeal.
The ruling followed written submissions from the parties, including a letter from A & L Goodbody dated 20 April 2020. It was made further to a judgment delivered by Ms Justice Irvine on 19 March 2020. The source does not state the date of this ruling.
The underlying case concerns Diesel Spa’s 1994 applications to register “DIESEL” and “DIESEL (DEVICE)” as trade marks in Class 25. Diesel Spa appealed against the Controller of Patents and Designs and Trade Marks and Montex Holdings Limited. The court said Diesel Spa had failed in its appeal.
Montex asked the court to lift a stay on a Court of Appeal costs order in its favour, which included the costs of the High Court hearing. That stay had been imposed pending the outcome of the substantive High Court appeal. The court refused Montex’s application and held that the earlier costs order should stand. It said Diesel Spa’s decision to exercise its right of appeal, which postponed the substantive appeal, was not culpable conduct warranting the lifting of the stay.
On the costs of the Supreme Court appeal, the Controller said he was content to discharge his own costs, and the court ordered accordingly. Diesel Spa did not resist an order for costs in Montex’s favour. The court ordered Diesel Spa to pay those costs, to be taxed if the parties could not agree the amount.
The court also refused Diesel Spa’s application to stay that appeal costs order pending the hearing of the substantive appeal. It was not satisfied that a valid argument had been advanced to show that the interests of justice warranted such a stay.