Haremi Limited is entitled to the costs of its interlocutory injunction motion against Safet Duran, Bright Blade Limited and Independent Clothing Limited, the High Court has ruled. The dispute over costs was the only issue left after the proceedings settled in full.
In a judgment delivered on 19 May 2023, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore found that it had been necessary for Haremi to start proceedings and seek interlocutory relief. The defendants gave undertakings on the motion’s return date, after the case had begun. The judge said Haremi obtained the relief it sought and was the winner on the motion.
Haremi said its registered EU trade mark, 4th ARQ, was infringed when branded clothing was sold through Bella Moda in Gorey and Elle in Tallaght. The company sold its clothing exclusively online. It believed the garments in the shops were stock it had rejected and returned to Independent Clothing Limited (ICL), a former supplier. The judgment records that the defendants accepted that ICL supplied some of the rejected clothing to the shops.
Before issuing proceedings, Haremi’s solicitors wrote to the defendants seeking undertakings and information about the goods and their suppliers. Duran replied that the items had been removed and disposed of, and that his business had been unaware they were registered goods. The judge found that this did not provide the assurances or supplier information Haremi had sought. He also found that ICL knew of the trade mark dispute by 2 March at the latest and that Bright Blade was to be treated as aware of Haremi’s concerns from 24 February at the latest.
On 10 March, the defendants undertook to stop dealing in goods bearing the mark or logo without Haremi’s consent while the proceedings continued, subject to stated exceptions for use in court proceedings. They also undertook to preserve relevant goods and disclose supplier or customer details. The motion was adjourned to deal with its costs.
The defendants argued, among other points, that Haremi’s pre-action demands were broader than the relief appropriate on an interim motion, that the shops had already stopped selling the goods, and that only 25 items were involved. The judge accepted that some demands went beyond what could ordinarily be ordered on an interlocutory motion, and said it would have been preferable for Haremi to specify more precisely what would avoid such a motion. But he found those points did not justify refusing costs. The defendants had not responded adequately or in time to the repeated correspondence, and the undertakings came only after proceedings and the motion were issued.
The costs awarded include the 30 March hearing and a later brief hearing about correspondence. The judge said that correspondence played no part in his decision, though he observed that invoices for goods supplied to the shops did not sit easily with the account in ICL sales manager Fawad Bari’s affidavit. The judgment did not determine the underlying trade mark claim, which had settled.