M L Technology Limited & Anor v BEAT Sam Limited & Ors

In intellectual property proceedings, a claimant with a real prospect of financial relief should ordinarily receive an inquiry or account unless disproportionate to likely recovery. If a full inquiry is disproportionate, the court should assess damages summarily where material permits and otherwise use a streamlined process. A reasonable licence fee is a judicial estimate based on a hypothetical negotiation, including realistic alternatives such as rebranding and the cost and inconvenience of transition. Disclosure and expert evidence must be necessary and proportionate. A publicity order is discretionary and must be appropriate and proportionate; it should not be made where the notice would mislead or the order’s utility is unproved. Costs require a substance-and-reality assessment. Payment to a party is important but not conclusive, and where neither side is the overall commercial winner the court may make no order as to costs.

This was a first-instance consequentials judgment following the court’s Main Judgment of 18 June 2026, [2026] EWHC 1483 (Ch), in claims by M L Technology Limited and Naurex Limited against BEAT Sam Limited and other defendants concerning the Naurex trade marks, website copyright and related claims.

Further evidence was admitted on the period of reasonable notice, copyright use, financial relief and consequential remedies. The court had to determine the assessment of trade mark damages, the need for further disclosure and expert evidence, the form and timing of injunctive relief, a proposed publicity order, retrospective costs-budget variations and the incidence of costs. The central procedural questions were whether damages should be determined by inquiry or by a proportionate summary process, whether relief should await related Swiss proceedings concerning ownership, and whether either side was the overall commercial winner.

The court ordered a streamlined summary assessment of trade mark damages, refused further disclosure and the publicity order, stayed positive injunctive and related relief pending the Swiss Proceedings, and made no order as to costs.

1. Website and trade mark damages. Further evidence established that there had been no relevant use of the copyright works in which M L Technology had title beyond the period of reasonable notice. If that conclusion were wrong, damages would have been summarily assessed at £1,000 on a broad-axe basis. For the trade mark claim, the court applied the approach in Lifestyle Equities CV & Anor v Amazon UK Services Ltd & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 552: the claimant had a real prospect of financial relief, but a full inquiry would be disproportionate and the material was insufficient for an immediate assessment. A later summary assessment was therefore ordered.
2. Licence fee and procedure. A reasonable licence fee required a hypothetical negotiation and judicial estimation of the available indications. Relevant matters included the realistic option of rebranding, the cost and disruption of transition, the period of use, exclusivity, existing goodwill and the Swiss dispute. The court considered an award near £50,000 more realistic than the much larger sum advanced by the claimants, but did not preclude either side from arguing for another figure. Further disclosure and expert evidence were unnecessary and disproportionate. Each side could serve a limited statement of case and up to two further factual witness statements, with a hearing of no more than one day.
3. Disclosure and relief. Island Records-type disclosure is confined to information sufficient to make an informed election between damages and an account. It is not full pre-action disclosure for the quantum case and should not be ordered merely to facilitate ADR. The disclosure application was refused. An injunction is the normal remedy for infringement, but positive injunctive and related orders were stayed because the Swiss Proceedings could alter ownership of the marks and the appropriate relief. Permission to apply to vary was preserved; the agreed £4,000 for the Second Consultancy Contract was payable within 28 days.
4. Publicity. Under s 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, a publicity order must be appropriate and proportionate. The proposed notice was one-sided and risked misleading readers by omitting the limited nature of the infringement findings and the unresolved Swiss Proceedings. There was insufficient evidence of practical utility, so the order was refused. The court agreed with the approach in Salt Ship Design AS v Prysmian Powerlink SRL [2021] EWHC 3583 (Comm) that a separate necessity requirement was not required in addition to proportionality.
5. Costs. Substantial retrospective variations to costs budgets require independent scrutiny even where agreed. The applications failed because the additional disclosure was not shown to have sufficient value and costs control should have operated before expenditure was incurred. Applying the substance-and-reality approach to success, neither side was the overall commercial winner. The claimants’ limited trade mark success was costly and commercially Pyrrhic; the defendants failed on their title and unlimited-use case. Issue-based apportionment would have been artificial. Under the discretion in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, each side was ordered to bear its own costs.

This was a first-instance consequentials judgment. It followed the court’s Main Judgment of 18 June 2026, [2026] EWHC 1483 (Ch); no appeal history is stated.