Stretchline Intellectual Property Ltd v H&M Hennes & Mauritz (UK) Ltd

In an important recent judgment by Mr Justice Carr in the Chancery Division, the court refused to grant an inunction against the high street retailer H&M to restrain it from breaching the Claimant’s patents by using fusible yarn in its bras. The Claimant had been successful at trial in demonstrating a breach of the patents, but the court refused the relief claimed. Carr J held that the applicable principles were the same in contract and in IP law, but refused and injunction on the grounds that:

(a) as previous patent proceedings had been settled the court had to consider the contractual regime and the injunction would cut across the contractual regime applicable when disputes arose;

(b) whilst the court might grant an injunction if further breaches were established, it had not been shown to be necessary to grant an injunction given that the infringements appeared to be a historic problem with the supply chain which H&M had taken steps to rectify; and

(c) An injunction would also be disproportionate because there was only so much that H&M could do to police their suppliers and it would leave them liable to contempt proceedings in respect of accidental breaches. 

The court also refused to distinguish the Experience Hendrix and World Wildlife Fund cases on the basis that neither had involved IP rights as such. The court held that the Claimant had no right to elect an account of profits as there was nothing exceptional in the case.

The judgment will be of interest both to general commercial practitioners and intellectual property specialists alike and, when available, will appear via a link here.
 
Andrew Green QC and Tom Hickman represented H&M and were instructed by Shoosmiths.