Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions

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 11^th 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 19^th March 2020.

 

Having considered the written submissions of the parties, including the letter of A & L Goodbody dated 20^th 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. 

Appellant submissions

Letter from ALG to Office of the Supreme Court

Respondent Submissions

Second Respondent Submissions