Reply and defence to counterclaim (trade mark infringement and passing off)
Produced in partnership with Andrew Bowler of Bristows , Sean Ibbetson of Bristows and Lucie Fortune of Bristows

The following IP precedent produced in partnership with Andrew Bowler of Bristows, Sean Ibbetson of Bristows and Lucie Fortune of Bristows provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Reply and defence to counterclaim (trade mark infringement and passing off)

Reply and defence to counterclaim (trade mark infringement and passing off)

Case No. [insert claim number]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)

[INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ENTERPRISE COURT (IPEC)

BETWEEN:

  1. [insert full name of claimant]        Claimant

  1. and

  1. [insert full name of defendant]        Defendant

_____________________________________

REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

_____________________________________

REPLY

    1. 1

      Save insofar as the Defence and Counterclaim of the Defendant (the Defence) comprises admissions of matters alleged in the Particulars of Claim, or as otherwise addressed below, the Claimant joins issue with the Defendant in respect of the content of their Defence and relies on CPR rule 16.7(2).

    1. 2

      Paragraph 3 is noted. In particular:

      1. 2.1

        It is denied that Paragraph 3(1) is a full and accurate description of the Claimant’s business. [provide further details, if appropriate].

      1. 2.2

        [It is averred that the Claimant has supplied [insert description of goods and/or services which the defendant does not admit have been supplied by the claimant but which the claimant has in fact supplied. Provide further details, if appropriate].

      1. 2.3

        It is denied that the sign used by the Claimant is [insert sign which the defendant alleges the claimant to have used. Include screenshots or annexes of the defendant’s use, if appropriate].]

    1. 3

      Paragraph 5 is denied. For the reasons set out below, the Registered Trade Mark is valid and should not be revoked.

    1. 4

      [Paragraphs 9 and 10 are

Popular documents