Key Facts
- •EasyGroup Limited (Claimant) brought a trademark infringement claim against Beauty Perfectionists Limited and others (Defendants) in March 2020 under European Regulation 2017/1001.
- •The Claimant sought to amend their response to a Request for Further Information (RFI) for a second time.
- •The proposed amendment included adding a new subparagraph to specify that the Claimant claims reputation for the easyJet trademark in relation to "Retail services connected to the sale of cosmetics and fragrances."
- •The Defendants opposed the amendment, arguing it introduced a new case and caused prejudice.
- •The amendment application was heard as part of a pre-trial review a few weeks before the trial was due to commence.
Legal Principles
Principles governing amendment applications, considering lateness, explanation for delay, clarity of amendment, prejudice to resisting and amending parties, and potential trial adjournment.
CIP Properties (CIPT) Ltd v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd [2015] EWHC 1345 (TCC) and ABP Technology v Voyetra Turtle Beach [2022] EWCA Civ 594
An amendment may be refused if its lateness causes unjustifiable prejudice to the other party, requiring an explanation for the delay.
ABP Technology v Voyetra Turtle Beach [2022] EWCA Civ 594
Assessment of whether an amendment introduces a new case, considering the impact on disclosure, evidence, and overall case strategy.
General Motors v Yplon [1999] ECR 1-5421 in W3 Ltd v EasyGroup [2018] FSR 16
Outcomes
The application to amend the response to the RFI was refused.
The amendment introduced a new and significantly wider case concerning the sale of cosmetics, causing prejudice to the Defendants at a late stage in the proceedings. Furthermore, the Claimant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in making the amendment.