Lifestyle Equities CV & Anor v Amazon UK Services Ltd & Ors

An injunction following established intellectual property infringement remains discretionary. It should ordinarily be refused where the infringement has ceased, there is no credible threat of repetition, and the defendant has clearly and effectively removed the relevant conduct. The court must consider proportionality and all the circumstances, including the triviality of the infringement and the practical effect of existing restrictions.

Costs remain subject to a broad assessment of the overall result and conduct. A late concession may justify a modest deduction without requiring an issues-based order where the issues cannot fairly be disentangled. Interim costs payments should have regard to approved costs budgets, while allowing for assessment risk. Interest may run at base rate before judgment-rate interest begins.

The hearing concerned consequential matters following the trial judgment in Lifestyle Equities CV & Anor v Amazon UK Services Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 118 (Ch). The claimants had established only limited historic trade mark infringement relating to product listings, while their principal targeting, sales, importation and joint-liability claims had failed.

The court considered whether to grant an injunction, the appropriate costs order, an interim payment on account, interest on costs, and permission to appeal. The central issues were whether a continuing threat justified injunctive relief despite effective restrictions, and how the overall outcome and late admission should affect costs.

1. Injunction. The court refused the injunction. Under s.37 (l) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, relief is discretionary and depends on what is just and convenient. Intellectual property infringement will commonly justify an injunction where repetition is threatened or there is no clear undertaking against repetition. That principle does not require an injunction where the infringement has ceased, effective restrictions prevent recurrence, and there is no credible threat of further infringement. The requested injunction would have been disproportionate to the limited infringement established. Recitals recording the effective restrictions and the defendants’ stated intention not to remove them were appropriate.
2. Costs. The defendants were the successful parties. Applying CPR rule 44.2, the court rejected an issues-based order because the late-conceded listing issue had not occupied trial time and could not be separated fairly from issues on which the defendants succeeded. A broad-brush deduction of 5% was appropriate, producing an order for 95% of the defendants’ costs.
3. Interim payment. Having regard to the approved costs budget under CPR 3.18, and the uncertainty inherent in assessment, the court ordered 90% of 95% of the budgeted costs. For incurred costs, respecting concerns expressed at the case-management hearing but allowing for the defendants’ arguments on the complexity of the litigation, the court ordered 55% of 95% of actual incurred costs.
4. Interest and appeal. Interest on unpaid costs was ordered at base rate until the date of the order, after which judgment-debt interest applied. Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds because the issues included legal points with a real prospect of success.

The judgment records that it followed the trial judgment of the High Court in Lifestyle Equities CV & Anor v Amazon UK Services Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 118 (Ch). Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted on all grounds.