Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Artcrafts International SpA v MOU Limited

[2024] EWHC 1558 (KB)
Two companies argued about a deal for shoes. One company (Artcrafts) said the other (MOU) broke their agreement by selling shoes where it wasn't allowed. A judge agreed and stopped MOU from selling there, said MOU couldn't just end the agreement early, and confirmed the US was part of the exclusive selling area. The case was about what the deal actually meant.

Key Facts

  • Artcrafts International SpA (Artcrafts) and MOU Limited (MOU) entered into a Licence Agreement in 2011 for the commercial exploitation of 'Mou' footwear.
  • MOU granted Artcrafts an exclusive license for specified territories, including the USA (added in 2012).
  • Artcrafts alleged that MOU breached the agreement by selling, advertising, and promoting products in the exclusive territory via SSENSE, its website, and Google Ads.
  • MOU initially denied breaches but later admitted to some during the hearing.
  • Artcrafts sought continuation of an interim injunction, summary judgment on MOU's claim that the agreement was terminable on reasonable notice, and judgment on MOU's admission that the USA was in the exclusive territory.
  • The court considered contractual interpretation, implication of terms, and the principles of interim injunctions.

Legal Principles

Principles for granting interim injunctions (American Cyanamid principles)

American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396

Contractual interpretation (Wood v Capita)

Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24

Implication of terms (Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas)

Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas [2015] UKSC 72

Summary judgment principles

Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)

Principles for striking out a statement of case

King v Kings Solutions Group Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1943

Principles for granting declarations

The Bank of New York Mellon v Essar Steel India Ltd [2018] EWHC 3177 (Ch)

Outcomes

Interim injunction granted in Artcrafts' favor.

There was a serious issue to be tried regarding breach of contract. Damages were not an adequate remedy for Artcrafts, while MOU would be adequately compensated under Artcrafts' undertaking. The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.

Summary judgment granted to Artcrafts on MOU's claim that the Licence Agreement was terminable on reasonable notice.

The agreement contained express provisions for termination, making the implied term inconsistent and unnecessary.

Part of MOU's Defence and Counterclaim struck out.

The struck-out paragraphs lacked a claim for relief and particularized loss. However, some parts were left pending an amendment application by MOU.

Declaration granted to Artcrafts confirming the USA as part of its exclusive territory since January 1, 2015.

MOU admitted this fact in a witness statement, despite initially denying it in its pleadings.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.