R v John Doak
[2023] EWHC 271 (SCCO)
Unicorn Studio Inc v Veronese (Société par Actions Simplifiée)
21 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1098 (Ch)
High Court
A company appealed a trademark decision. They won the appeal and got their legal costs paid, but the judge reduced the amount because some of the legal work seemed to take too long. The judge considered but didn't use a special rule that limits how much can be claimed back in legal costs for appeals.
Key Facts
- •Appeal from a Hearing Officer's decision in Trade Mark Opposition proceedings.
- •Appellant (Unicorn Studio Inc) won the appeal, securing the trademark for all goods categories.
- •Respondent (Veronese) was unrepresented in the appeal.
- •Appellant's solicitor's costs were £22,823.30, counsel's fees were £24,050.
- •The judge considered CPR Part 52.19 regarding cost limitations on appeals.
Legal Principles
Costs recovery in appeals may be limited, considering the parties' means, circumstances, and access to justice.
CPR Part 52.19
In assessing costs, the court considers the overall outcome and proportionality.
CPR Part 44
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Hearing Officer erred in distinguishing categories of goods.
Solicitor costs awarded at £15,000 (reduced from £22,823.30 due to excessive time spent on drafting).
Time spent on drafting documents and skeleton argument deemed excessive.
Counsel fees awarded at £20,000 (reduced from £24,050, excluding advice fees).
Counsel's advice deemed unallowable; change of counsel didn't justify increased costs.
Total costs awarded: £35,000 (including court fees) + £2,000 for costs before the IPO.
Case deemed important to the appellant; no proportionality deduction made.
Similar Cases
Intersar Al-Balhaa & Anor v RMG Residential Management Group Ltd
[2024] EWHC 229 (KB)
Andrew William Warner Wootton & Anor v Tracy Jane Wootton & Ors
[2024] EWHC 325 (Ch)
Suzanne Merrills v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1788 (Admin)
Hon Shu Pang & Anor v Justin Zinda
[2024] EWHC 176 (KB)