Link Up Mitaka Ltd (t/a Thebigword) v Language Empire Ltd & Anor

Link Up Mitaka Ltd (t/a Thebigword) v Language Empire Ltd & Anor: Short summary

Competitor Cybersquatting Converted into Record Damages

The problem: Our client, a global translation firm, discovered a direct competitor was using fraudulent websites (cybersquatting) to impersonate their brand and siphon off new business enquiries.

Our action & the result: We brought a trade mark infringement claim in the IPEC. The defendant hid evidence and gave dishonest testimony to conceal their sales. We successfully used our client's own data (a 50% traffic spike after the sites were shut down) to prove the true scale of the theft. The court awarded our client record-breaking damages of £140k+ (double what was sought). We then proved the defendant's conduct was an "abuse of process," shattering the IPEC costs cap to win a further £98k, a ruling confirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Link Up Mitaka Ltd (t/a Thebigword) v Language Empire Ltd & Anor: In detail

When an international linguistic services company, "thebigword," found a competitor using its brand on a fraudulent website to siphon off customers, they knew they had to act. This wasn't just trade mark infringement; it was a deliberate, bad-faith attack on their business.

The competitor, Language Empire, ignored pre-action letters and only took the websites down after proceedings were issued, hoping the issue would resolve itself. They then deliberately obfuscated evidence, hid sales data, and gave dishonest testimony in an attempt to escape liability. They chose the wrong opponent.

Our action and the result

Virtuoso Legal pursued the claim aggressively in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC). When the defendants refused to disclose evidence of their sales, we built our case by other means. We proved that after the infringing sites were shut down, our client's own web traffic jumped by 50%.

Her Honour Judge Clarke used this data to infer the true scale of the theft. The court awarded our client over £140,000 in damages, more than double the amount originally sought.

Furthermore, we successfully argued that the defendants' "dishonesty and obfuscatory" conduct amounted to an "abuse of the processes of the court." The judge agreed, and in a rare and ground-breaking move, lifted the IPEC costs cap, awarding our client £98,000, nearly four times the standard limit. The defendants' subsequent appeal was refused, cementing this total victory.

The takeaway for innovators

When a competitor attacks your brand, a simple takedown isn't enough; you must hold them accountable. Many firms would have stopped when the websites were removed, or been blocked when the defendant hid the evidence. We are tenacious. We dig deeper, find alternative ways to prove your loss, and will use the full power of the court to ensure that a dishonest competitor pays for their infringement.

Is a competitor stealing your brand or customers? Book a confidential consultation with our team to explore your options.

The legal deep dive: a masterclass in IPEC procedure

For legal professionals, this case is a critical IPEC precedent. It demonstrates how to secure a significant win for your client, even when faced with a dishonest defendant and the IPEC's cost-capping regime.

1. Proving damages through inference: The defendants deliberately "obfuscated", making a standard inquiry as to damages impossible. Instead of being left with nominal damages, we built our case on inference. Our key evidence was our own client's data: a 50% spike in their website traffic after the infringing sites were removed.

HHJ Clarke accepted this as evidence of the "significant" traffic being diverted. She used this to find that the defendants' "cherry-picked" and "constructed" list of enquiries was false, and instead liberally assessed damages based on the "deliberate obfuscation," resulting in a £142,044 award.

2. Shattering the IPEC costs cap: The IPEC's £25,000 cap (for an inquiry) is a key feature. However, we argued that the defendants' conduct, including giving dishonest evidence and hiding information, was so egregious that it met the high bar of "abuse of the processes of the court".

The judge agreed, disapplying the cap entirely and awarding our client £98,260 in summarily assessed costs. This is one of the very rare instances of the cap being lifted and serves as a powerful warning, with the judge stating: "Litigants in IPEC must understand that conduct which amounts to an abuse of the processes of the court will cause them to lose the benefit of the protection that the Scale Costs Scheme gives them."

3. Vindicating the win at appeal: The defendants sought to appeal, but The Right Honourable Lord Justice Floyd (in the Court of Appeal) refused permission. He validated the judge's findings, stating she was "faced with the difficult task of attempting to assess damages in the face of the deliberate obfuscation of the applicants. It is inevitable that she will have done so liberally and by making use of inferences open to her on the evidence."

Summary of key litigation points

This case is the benchmark for dealing with a bad-faith actor in the IPEC. It shows that the court will reward tenacious, creative litigation in the face of deception. We act as a trusted specialist partner for firms whose clients face complex IP disputes, particularly where a defendant's conduct requires a more aggressive and technically proficient strategy.

If you have a client in a complex IPEC matter, we invite you to contact our team for a confidential, no-obligation discussion.