Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
IESC 15 ECLI:IE:SC:2020:15 AI generated

Supreme Court refuses stay on costs order against losing trademark appeal party Diesel Spa.

Case Number IESC 15
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Ireland (IE)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court refused Montex's application to lift a stay on a costs order awarded to Diesel Spa. Diesel Spa lost its appeal on trademark registration, and the Court held that its decision to appeal was not culpable enough to justify removing the stay. Consequently, the costs order stands, and Diesel Spa must pay Montex's costs.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Trade Marks Act 1963; The Supreme Court held that a party's exercise of the right to appeal, even after losing, does not constitute culpable delay warranting the lifting of a stay on a costs order.

Keywords

AI generated
trademark registration appeal costs order enforcement stay of proceedings loss of appeal procedural delay

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

The Supreme Court

Supreme Court Record No. 2019/33

IN THE MATTER OF THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1963

AND IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION NUMBERS 177240 and 177245 DATED 11th Jan 1994 BY DIESEL SPA FOR REGISTRATION OF DIESEL AND DIESEL (DEVICE) AS TRADE MARKS IN CLASS 25 OF THE REGISTER OF TRADE MARKS

BETWEEN:

DIESEL SPA

Plaintiff/Appellant

And

THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS

First Defendant/Respondent

And

MONTEX HOLDINGS LIMITED

Second named Defendant/Respondent

Ruling on the application of Montex further to the judgment of Ms Justice Irvine delivered on 19th March 2020.

Having considered the written submissions of the parties, including the letter of A & L Goodbody dated 20th April 2020, the Court is satisfied that the order for costs made by the Court of Appeal, in Montex’s favour, which included the costs of the High Court hearing, should stand and that Montex’s application to have the stay imposed on that costs order lifted be refused.

The Court considers the argument advanced by Montex to lift the aforementioned stay, which was granted pending the outcome of the substantive High Court appeal, is misplaced. Whilst Hogan J. did indeed state that there should be no further delay in the proceedings, the fact that Diesel Spa exercised its right to appeal to this court and was thus responsible for the substantive appeal being postponed, its actions in this regard cannot be considered culpable such that it should be penalised by the lifting of the stay.

As to the costs of the Appeal, the Controller has indicated that he is content to discharge his own costs and the court will so order.

In circumstances where Diesel Spa failed in its appeal and does not resist an order for costs being made in Montex’s favour, the court will make such an order, the said costs to be taxed in default of agreement. As the court is not satisfied that any valid argument has been advanced to demonstrate that the justice of the case would warrant the imposition of a stay on the costs order made in respect of the appeal to this court, Diesel Spa’s application for a stay pending the hearing of the substantive appeal is declined.