Levi Strauss & Co v Barclays Trading Corporation Inc and others

Date

13 May 1992

Legislation

Supreme Court Act 1981, s. 37

Keywords

counterfeit goods; disclosure of information; threat of violence; undertakings; injunction

Counsel

James Mellor, Colin Birss

Solicitors:

Linklaters; David Cohen & Co

Judge:

HHJ Bromley Q.C. (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Court:

High Court (Chancery Division)

Reported:

[1993] FSR 179

Summary:

The defendants were alleged to be selling counterfeit Levi jeans. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the defendants. No order was made by the court on the basis that the defendants gave undertakings to provide relevant information and not infringe the plaintiff’s trade marks.

The defendants subsequently applied to restrain the plaintiff from using the information they had provided for any purpose other than in connection with these proceedings. They also argued that wider disclosure would potentially subject them to threats of personal injury.

Decision

The Judge considered the previous case law and held as follows:

• there is no implied limitation on the scope of the use of the disclosed information. If that was the position it would amount to a severe restriction which was inconsistent with the decision in Norwich Pharmacal v Customs and Excise[1974] AC 133; that
• the Defendants should have raised this point at the time when they gave the undertakings to the court; and
• the allegations of potential risk of injury were exaggerated, generalised, without particularity and unpersuasive. The evidence of risk was therefore of little substantial weight.

[On the issue of whether potential threats to safety can prevent disclosure see also Coca Cola v Gilbey]