Glencairn IP Holdings Limited v. Dartington Crystal (Torrington) Limited

Glencairn IP Holdings Limited v. Dartington Crystal (Torrington) Limited: Short summary

Defeating injunction threatening major glassware line

The Problem: Our client, Dartington Crystal, faced a High Court interim injunction from competitor Glencairn, alleging Dartington's "Whisky Experience" glass infringed Glencairn's Registered Design. An injunction would force the immediate removal of the product from major retailers.

Our Action & The Result: We robustly defended the injunction application. We successfully argued that damages would be an adequate remedy for Glencairn if they won at trial (given Dartington's ability to pay) and that the balance of convenience favoured keeping the product on sale to avoid disproportionate harm to Dartington. The High Court refused the injunction. We secured £26k in costs against Glencairn for the failed application. The parties later reached a confidential settlement. The product subsequently won "Gift of the Year".

Glencairn IP Holdings Limited v. Dartington Crystal (Torrington) Limited: In detail

For any design-led manufacturer, an interim injunction application seeking to remove a popular product line from sale is a critical threat. Dartington Crystal, a household name in UK luxury glassware, faced exactly this when competitor Glencairn IP Holdings initiated High Court proceedings in early 2018.

Glencairn alleged that Dartington's new "Whisky Experience" tasting glass infringed their UK Registered Design for the well-known "Glencairn Glass." They sought an urgent interim injunction which, if granted, would have forced Dartington to immediately pull the Whisky Experience glass from the shelves of major distributors like John Lewis, Waitrose, and TK Maxx, pending a full trial. This represented a significant commercial risk.

Dartington Crystal instructed Virtuoso Legal to defend its position and protect its product line.

Our action and the result

Our immediate priority was defeating the interim injunction application. We contested Glencairn's infringement claim based on the registered design principle of "overall impression," highlighting the differences between the designs. Crucially, we focused on the established legal tests for granting interim injunctions.

We successfully argued before His Honour Judge Hacon (sitting in the High Court) that the balance favoured refusing the injunction. We emphasised that Dartington Crystal, as a reputable and financially sound company, could easily compensate Glencairn with damages if infringement were eventually found at trial. This was contrasted with the significant and potentially unrecoverable harm Dartington would suffer if forced to withdraw a popular product line based on an unproven claim. The judge agreed, ruling the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo (keeping the glasses on sale).

Having successfully defended the injunction, we secured a costs order requiring Glencairn to pay £26,000 towards Dartington's legal costs for the failed application. Following this robust defence, the parties later reached a confidential settlement just before Christmas 2018.

Dartington's Whisky Experience glass subsequently won "Gift of the Year" 2019, demonstrating the product's continued success in the market, unhindered by the litigation attempt.

The takeaway for innovators and manufacturers

Protecting your unique designs is vital, but so is defending them against challenges. Interim injunctions can pose an immediate and severe threat to your business operations. Successfully resisting such applications requires swift, expert legal action focused not just on the IP rights but also on the commercial realities and the legal principles governing injunctive relief.

Facing a design right dispute or injunction? Book a confidential consultation with our specialist IP team.

The legal deep dive: resisting interim injunctions in design right cases

For legal professionals, Glencairn v Dartington illustrates key strategies in defending interim injunction applications based on alleged UK Registered Design infringement.

1. Interim injunction principles (American Cyanamid test): The court applied the standard three-stage test for interim injunctions:

• • Serious Issue to be Tried: While infringement based on "overall impression" (s.7(1) Registered Designs Act 1949, considering the informed user) was the substantive issue, the injunction application turned primarily on the subsequent stages.
  • Adequacy of Damages: This was pivotal. HHJ Hacon concluded that damages would be an adequate remedy for Glencairn if they eventually won at trial. Dartington's established market position and financial standing meant they could readily pay any quantifiable loss suffered by Glencairn due to continued sales. Conversely, the harm to Dartington from pulling stock (disruption, loss of goodwill with distributors, lost sales) might be harder to quantify and potentially irreparable if the injunction were wrongly granted.
  • Balance of Convenience: Consequently, the balance favoured refusing the injunction and maintaining the status quo, allowing Dartington to continue selling pending trial. The court weighed the risk of injustice, concluding that refusing the injunction carried the lower risk.

2. The significance of the defendant's standing: Dartington's reputation and financial stability were key factors in persuading the court that damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant. This highlights how a defendant's ability to satisfy a potential future judgment can influence the outcome of interim injunction applications.
3. Costs recovery: Successfully defending an interim injunction application can lead to significant immediate cost recovery. The order for Glencairn to pay £26,000 towards Dartington's costs reflected the failure of their application and imposed a tangible consequence for pursuing the injunction attempt. This can be a valuable tactical outcome, shifting financial pressure early in the litigation process.
4. Path to settlement: Defeating the injunction application removed Glencairn's primary leverage and likely contributed to the eventual confidential settlement. By demonstrating a robust defence and securing an early costs win, the dynamic of the dispute shifted, favouring a negotiated resolution.

Summary of key litigation points

This case underscores the importance of the American Cyanamid principles, particularly the adequacy of damages and balance of convenience, when defending against interim injunctions in design right matters. Establishing the defendant's ability to meet a potential damages award and highlighting the disproportionate harm an injunction would cause are critical elements. A successful defence at the interim stage can not only protect immediate commercial interests but also recover costs and create favourable conditions for settlement. We offer specialist expertise in navigating urgent injunctive relief applications in all areas of IP.

Need assistance with an interim injunction application or defence in a design right case? Contact our litigation team for expert advice.