- Failure to apply to extend injunction stay means the injunction ‘bites’ (Cormeton Fire Protection Ltd v Pyrocel Ltd and another)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
IP analysis: This judgment deals with a number of issues raised by way of application by the claimant following judgment on the central issue of the right to use the ‘Cormeton’ name in relation to mechanical and electrical fire protection systems. In the present judgment, the court held that an injunction which had been stayed pending application by the defendants to extend that stay was held to ‘bite’ following the defendants’ failure to apply. The court also clarified the position relating to its disclosure order, pointing out that a defendant cannot refuse to comply with an order for Island Records v Tring disclosure simply because they feel it is ‘not worth the candle’. Written by Dr Tim Sampson, barrister at Lamb Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial