Decision

Decision on Coloratura Ltd

Updated 4 April 2022

Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 1985 by Cartier International AG for a change to the company name of Coloratura Ltd, company registration no. 11475105.

1. Company 11475105 (“the primary respondent”) was incorporated on 20 July 2018 with the name Coloratura Ltd. On 23 April 2019, Cartier International AG (“the applicant”), filed an application to this Tribunal under section 69 of the Companies Act 2006 (“the Act”).

2. Section 69 of the Act states:

(1) A person (“the applicant”) may object to a company’s registered name on the ground-(a) that it is the same as a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill, or (b) that it is sufficiently similar to such a name that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant.

(2) The objection must be made by application to a company names adjudicator (see section 70).

(3) The company concerned shall be the primary respondent to the application.

Any of its members or directors may be joined as respondents.

(4) If the ground specified in subsection (1)(a) or (b) is established, it is for the respondents to show-

(a) that the name was registered before the commencement of the activities on which the applicant relies to show goodwill; or

(b) that the company-

(i) is operating under the name, or

(ii) is proposing to do so and has incurred substantial start-up costs in preparation, or

(iii) was formerly operating under the name and is now dormant;

or

(c) that the name was registered in the ordinary course of a company formation business and the company is available for sale to the applicant on the standard terms of that business; or

(d) that the name was adopted in good faith; or

(e) that the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent.

If none of these is shown, the objection shall be upheld.

(5) If the facts mentioned in subsection 4(a), (b) or (c) are established, the objection shall nevertheless be upheld if the applicant shows that the main purpose of the respondents (or any of them) in registering the name was to obtain money (or other consideration) from the applicant or prevent him from registering the name.

(6) If the objection is not upheld under subsection (4) or (5), it shall be dismissed.

(7) In this section “goodwill” includes reputation of any description.

3. In its application, the applicant requested that the primary respondent’s director, namely Mr. Erich Auer, be joined to the proceedings under the provisions of section 69(3) of the Act. Mr. Auer was given notice of this request and an opportunity to comment or to object. On 22 May 2019, he wrote to the Tribunal stating that he did not wish to be joined. These comments were considered and a preliminary view joining him was issued on 29 August 2019. Mr. Auer wrote to the Tribunal on numerous occasions, however, ultimately, he did not contest the preliminary view and request a hearing. Therefore, on 17 October 2019 he was confirmed as being a co-respondent and made jointly and severally liable with the primary respondent for any potential costs award.

4. The name associated with the applicant which caused it to make its application is “COLORATURA”. The applicant states that it launched its “Coloratura” jewellery range in the UK on 4 July 2018 and has since made sales in excess of £10.374 million. Therefore, it has the requisite goodwill/reputation.

5. The applicant indicates that it objects to the name because “the company name “Coloratura Ltd” is the same as a name (“Coloratura”) associated with the applicant in which the applicant owns goodwill.” It is claiming its costs and in response to question 7 on the Form CNA1 which asks whether prior warning of these proceedings was given, it answered “No”.

6. The applicant goes on to detail the various trade mark opposition and cancellation proceedings between the parties before the EUIPO and Swiss national trade mark registry.

The applicant states that:

Erich Auer, Director of Coloratura Ltd, are what many people colloquially refer to as a “trade mark troll”. Mr. Auer has established various companies (in the UK, Bulgaria, Switzerland and Austria) and through these companies he has filed thousands of trade mark applications in Germany and Austria.

7. The applicant then states that, “In the case at hand, Mr. Auer Learned of Cartier’s interest in the “Coloratura” trade mark prior to his incorporation of Coloratura Ltd on 20 July 2018.

8. The primary respondent filed a notice of defence dated 26 June 2019, signed by Mr. Auer. It states:

The applicant didn’t own a goodwill in the trademark COLORATURA, because the trademark was stolen from Erich Auer and his ip-exploitation-company and COLORATURA LTD owns the older rights on the trademark COLORATURA.

9. The counterstatement goes on to state that:

Since the beginning of 2001, Erich Auer is a pioneer in the interdisciplinary creative-scientific development of new trademark rights.

He has developed many new brand names for almost two decades. The companies that Erich Auer founded exploit and manage the trademark rights. Being one of the best-known trademark developers, Cartier also came across his trademark development COLORATURA, which was published in the official trademark-register.

10. Further, “Cartier acts punishably and criminally, because it deliberately uses the pirate trademark and has been distributing a 240-piece jewellery collection under the pirate trademark COLORATURA in Switzerland and the EU since July 2018.” And that, “Cartier has been illegally generating million in revenues under the stolen trademark COLORATURA since July 2018”.

11. The primary respondent makes further submissions which we have read, considered and those which are relevant will be referred to later in this decision.

12. The primary respondent indicates that it is relying upon defences based upon sections 69(4)(d) and (e) of the Act, i.e. good faith and the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected, respectively. It further indicates that it is claiming its off-scale costs on the basis that the application is “abusive”. We shall address this later in this decision.

13. In these proceedings, the applicant is represented by Bristows LLP; the primary respondent represents itself. Both parties filed evidence and written submissions. The parties were asked if they wanted a decision to be made following a hearing or from the papers. Neither party requested a hearing but did file written submissions in lieu. The respondent also made various submissions in its defence and these shall be taken into account.

Evidence

Applicant’s evidence

14. The applicant’s evidence consists of a witness statement, dated 13 December 2019, from Louis Roukine, accompanied by exhibits LR1 to LR19. Mr. Roukine is “Maison Lead IP Advisor for Cartier at Richemont International AS, the parent company of the Applicant” and is “responsible for protecting and enforcing Cartier’s IP rights.”

15. Mr. Roukine states that “As the name suggests the theme of the collection is colour. Jewels of vibrant colours are selected to create modern jewellery masterpieces with a stunning visual impact” ^{[footnote 1]}. He states Cartier produces “standard” collections of jewellery and “high jewellery” such as the Coloratura range, consisting of about 240 pieces ranging in price from €100,000 to several millions. Exhibit LR-1 consists of undated pictures of the jewellery.

16. The Coloratura range was launched at an event in Paris between 4 and 13 July 2018. The event was attended by celebrities and between 100 and 150 people were UK based. A copy of the invitations to the event has been submitted as evidence ^{[footnote 2]}. Between 4 July 2018 and 5 May 2019, various other events took place around the world. Whilst none were in the UK, Mr. Roukine states that of the 8,000 people that attended around 180 of those were UK-based individuals.

17. Between the UK launch date of 4 July 2018 and the date of incorporation of Coloratura Ltd (20 July 2018), Mr. Roukine states that “the Applicant promoted its Coloratura jewellery collection via its UK-facing website and UK-accessible social media accounts.” ^{[footnote 3]} Exhibits LR-2 to LR-4 consist of announcements of the launch on social media platforms Instagram, Facebook and Twitter dated 4, 9 and 11 July 2018 respectively. Mr. Roukine states that “The Applicant’s marketing team estimates that the launch announcement on Instagram was seen by more than 613,000 individuals on the platform.” ^{[footnote 4]}

18. Mr. Roukine states that the content of the Coloratura range has been present on the UK-facing Cartier.co.uk website since 4 July 2018. He provides copies of the content ^{[footnote 5]} but the website extracts are undated.

19. Exhibit LR-6 consists of an article dated 6 July 2018 published on the website of Vogue magazine headed “Cartier’s New High Jewellery Collection is a Banquet of Color”. The article states that “The Cartier presentation of its high jewellery Coloratura collection in Paris takes place the day after the house hosts a cocktail party on a boat in dry dock on the Seine…”.

20. Mr. Roukine states that since the launch of the Coloratura range, the collection has attracted coverage from online newspapers plus high-end fashion and lifestyle magazines. These include:

• An article ^{[footnote 6]} dated 11 July 2018 from the UK newspaper website The Daily Telegraph (telegraph.co.uk). The article refers to the “240-piece Coloratura collection” and includes a picture of various items of jewellery.
• Dated 25 July 2018 from the Harper’s Bazaar website, which states “As we chat, we’re sat on a table in the Shangri La Hotel in Paris where Cartier has just about showcased its latest Coloratura high jewellery collection…”.
• A website extract dated “October 2018” from Conde Nast Traveller UK which refers to a Coloratura bracelet.
• December 2018 from Tattler.com featuring Coloratura with images of various jewellery.

21. In terms of marketing and promotion, Mr. Roukine states that due to the expense of the products in question they do not use conventional display advertising. Instead, marketing of the goods is targeted through bespoke and exclusive events. Since the launch of Coloratura, it is claimed that the applicant has spent more than €20m on hosting events to promote the collection.

22. Mr. Roukine states that in 2018 global sales of items in the Coloratura collection exceeded €20m, with UK clients responsible for more than €7m. In the first 10 months of 2019, global sales exceeded €10m, with UK customers accounting for €0.7m.

23. The rest of Mr. Roukine’s witness statement consists of comments in relation to the primary respondent’s defences which we shall not summarise here but will refer to in the relevant part of this decision.

Primary respondent’s evidence

24. The primary respondent’s evidence consists of a witness statement from Mr. Erich Auer and accompanying exhibits A1 to A5. The witness statement is 23 pages long, made up largely of submissions rather than facts and repeatedly alleges that the COLORATURA trade mark was stolen from it and the applicant is entirely dishonest with its claims. He also claims that “Mr Roukine’s allegations are by and large untruths, insinuations, baseless speculations and baseless accusations” ^{[footnote 7]}. None of these claims have, he states, been substantiated in law and, in fact, there is no evidence to support such claims.

25. Mr. Auer states that:

“4. Since the beginning of 2001, I have been a pioneer in the field of professional, interdisciplinary creation of new trademark rights. In the meantime, I am probably one of the best-known developers of new trademark rights, at least in Europe. I have also been a European Trade Mark Attorney since March 2006.”

26. Mr Auer states that he is the “originator of the trademark COLORATURA for jewellery” ^{[footnote 8]}. Further, he claims that he and “the companies that administer the trademark rights that I have created, naturally and logically always have an intention to use the trademarks.” ^{[footnote 9]}

27. The accompanying exhibits are summarised as follows:

• Exhibit A1: an article from Forbes headed “How does a trademark protect your business name” dated 21 February 2021. The article is targeted to the US and therefore not relevant to these proceedings
• Exhibit A2: an “Acknowledgment of receipt” from the Swiss IP Office which appears to be confirmation of the trade mark COLORATURA being filed on 4 December 2018
• Exhibit A3: guidance from the UK Intellectual Property Office headed “What intellectual property is”,
• Exhibit A4: an article headed “Dormant companies” from the website rocketlawyers.com.

Relationship between the parties

28. Mr. Auer’s witness statement claims that “For the purpose of the trademark theft, CARTIER used a German shell company called MINERVA GmbH” and its managing director contacted Mr. Auer asking for information on the purchase price for new trademarks. Mr. Auer claims that between April 2012 and 2015 the “shell” company contacted him and enquired about two different marks but an agreement was not reached. Instead, the “shell” company “spied” on Mr. Auer’s activities and subsequently applied for the mark COLORATURA at the German office.

29. In Mr. Roukine’s witness statement he refers to the General Court judgment in Luceo ^{[footnote 10]} which was between a company called Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd, with which Mr. Auer had “links” ^{[footnote 11]}, and the EUIPO. Mr. Roukine specifically refers to, inter alia, the following paragraphs:

[…] as is apparent from the Board of Appeal’s findings, Mr A. submitted chains of applications for registration of national trade marks, which were filed every six months, alternately in Germany and in Austria, just before the expiry of the six-month period of reflection in order to claim priority for a European Union trade mark in accordance with Article 29(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. Those applications were successively cancelled due to non-payment of registration fees and were therefore not examined by the national trade mark offices.

Such conduct cannot be considered to be legitimate business activity, but must be considered to be contrary to the objectives of Regulation No 207/2009.

30. In essence, Mr. Auer’s strategy was that he would file numerous applications and claim successive priority claims and should a third party then file an application for registration of an identical or similar European Union trade mark he would then apply for that mark at the EUIPO claiming priority from the last national application. The General Court went on to say that “The successive chain of applications for registration of national trade marks is designed therefore to grant him a blocking position for a period exceeding the six-month period of reflection provided for by Article 29(1) of Regulation No 207/2009…”. It was subsequently found that “the companies linked to him could not be assimilated with an activity which a trade mark agency could legitimately exercise, but sought to grant him a blocking position…”. Therefore, the company associated to Mr. Auer had acted in bad faith.

31. Mr. Auer describes the judgment as “a miscarriage of justice based on untrue facts, as well as multiple violations of fundamental rights, violations of international law, and violations of substantive law.” Further, “The European Court of Justice has granted legal aid against the LUCEO judgment, recognising the unlawfulness and factual inaccuracies”, however due to “incorrect notifications of deadlines” the judgment became final. Accordingly, we must accept the General Court’s finding that the company associated with Mr. Auer had acted in bad faith.

32. Mr. Roukine also makes reference to proceedings before the Swiss Courts whereby the trade mark COLORATURA was refused as it was found to have been filed in bad faith. Although Mr. Auer gave numerous submissions on why he believes the Swiss Federal Supreme Court erred in its judgment, the decision stands.

Decision

33. If the primary respondent defends the application, as here, the applicant must establish that it has goodwill or reputation in relation to a name that is the same, or sufficiently similar, to that of the primary respondent’s name suggesting a connection between the applicant and the primary respondent. If this burden is fulfilled, it is then necessary to consider if the primary respondent can rely upon defences under section 69(4) of the Act.

The applicant’s goodwill/reputation

34. In relation to establishing a goodwill/reputation, this Tribunal routinely looks for guidance to case law developed in trade mark proceedings. Section 69(7) of the Act defines goodwill as a “reputation of any description”. Consequently, in the terms of the Act it is not limited to Lord Macnaghten’s classic definition in IRC v Muller & Co’s Margerine Ltd [1901] AC 217:

What is goodwill? It is a thing very easy to describe, very difficult to define. It is the benefit and advantage of the good name, reputation, and connection of a business. It is the attractive force which brings in custom. It is the one thing which distinguishes an old-established business from a new business at its first start.

35. We also bear in mind that it is well-established that goodwill of more than a trivial nature, even if it is small, is capable of protection (Stacey v 2020 Communications [1991] FSR 49 refers).

36. The applicant claims it has goodwill/reputation in the name “COLORATURA” in the field of jewellery. The relevant date is the date of incorporation of the primary respondent which, in this case, is 20 July 2018. The applicant must show that it had a goodwill or reputation at this date associated with the name “COLORATURA”.

37. The primary respondent argues “that no Goodwill can be created from a pirated/robbed trademark. No right can arise from injustice/robbery”. ^{[footnote 12]} We reject this line of argument because it is mere assertion and not substantiated in any way.

38. In the primary respondent’s notice of defence it stated that since July 2018 Cartier has generated millions of pounds in revenue under the sign COLORATURA. It alleges that the revenue was obtained illegally (because it was not the rightful owner), but there is no evidence to support this. It is conceivable that we take the primary respondent’s statement that the applicant has accrued such large revenue to be an admission that goodwill or reputation had existed at the relevant date. However, we shall not take this to be the case because in paragraph 18 of its defence it also states that: “the applicant didn’t own a goodwill in the trademark COLORATURA, because the trademark was stolen from Erich Auer and his ip-exploitation-company and COLORATURA LTD owns the older rights on the trademark COLORATURA.”. There is no evidence to support the allegation that the trade mark was stolen and therefore nothing further will be said about it.

39. Mr. Roukine states that the COLORATURA collection was launched in Paris on 4 July 2018. The launch included social media exposure across, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter all prior to the relevant date and seen by more than 613,000 individuals. Further, reference to Coloratura has appeared on the applicant’s UK-facing website since 4 July 2018. Notwithstanding this evidence, it is reasonable to assume that an event of this nature in Paris will require significant preparation, which would have begun some months before the launch on 4 July 2018. Whilst the preparations for such events are not in themselves sufficient to demonstrate goodwill/reputation, it demonstrates further that COLORATURA would have been in the public domain and, alongside a world renowned popular brand such as Cartier, would also have been viewed by a reasonable number of consumers in the jewellery trade.

40. In view of the above, we find that the applicant has established that it has the requisite goodwill/reputation in the sign COLORATURA at the date the primary respondent was incorporated.

Similarity of names

41. The other initial burden facing the applicant is that the primary respondent’s name is sufficiently similar to “COLORATURA” to suggest a connection between the primary respondent and the applicant. The primary respondent’s name is Coloratura Ltd. The word “Ltd” is descriptive since it simply indicates the primary respondent’s legal status. Therefore, we regard the names at issue as the same.

Defences

42. The statutory defences under section 69(4) are set out at the beginning of this decision. Section 69(4)(d) of the Act indicates that the primary respondent may have a defence if “the name was adopted in good faith.”

43. It is evident from the wording of s.69(4) of the Act that the onus is on the primary respondent to show that the contested name was adopted in good faith. The relevant date for this defence is the date on which the company name was adopted i.e. 20 July 2018.

44. The following principles in relation to good faith can be extracted from the judgments of the Privy Council in Barlow Clowes v Eurotrust International Ltd [2005] UKPC 37 and the Court of Appeal in England and Wales in Niru Battery Manufacturing v Milestone Trading Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1446:

(i) Good faith is a broad concept which includes a failure to act in a commercially acceptable way. It includes sharp practice which falls short of outright dishonesty, and also dishonesty itself - see Niru Battery at para 164.

(ii) There is a combined subjective/objective approach to the honesty of a party’s behaviour. This involves (i) a consideration of what the party knew at the time of a transaction and (ii) how that party’s action would be viewed by applying normally acceptable standards of commercial behaviour - see Barlow Clowes paras 15–18, 28–32.

45. Our task is: (a) to determine what the primary respondent knew at the time the contested name was adopted, and (b) whether the adoption of the name would be viewed as commercially acceptable behaviour when judged objectively. This means how reasonable people in the field would view the primary respondent’s behaviour (i.e. not simply how the primary respondent viewed its own actions).

What did the primary respondent know when it adopted the name?

46. Mr. Auer describes himself as a “trademark developer” and it can be seen from the General Court’s decision in Luceo that he stockpiles trade marks which are ready in waiting for other companies, with a legitimate interest to use them, so that he can sell the marks to them. There is no evidence or claim that Mr. Auer has used, or has any intention to use, the mark COLORATURA (or any of the marks he “develops”).

47. The primary respondent adopted its name on 20 July 2018 which is 16 days after the applicant’s launch of its high end jewellery collection in Paris. Whilst it is not proven that the primary respondent or Mr. Auer were aware of the brand launch, it does seem unrealistically coincidental for the same company name to be filed in such a short time after the launch. Mr. Auer states that “It is reasonable, advisable and customary for one to register and protect the eponymous company name if one already has a trademark.” ^{[footnote 13]}. This is a prima facie reasonable explanation. However, the EUIPO trade mark was filed in March and the company name registered four months later.

Were the primary respondent’s actions commercially acceptable?

48. Whilst Mr. Auer may believe that “an interdisciplinary creative-scientific development of new trademark rights” is commercially acceptable, it is not to be assessed by his standards. The question is how Mr. Auer’s actions would be viewed by applying normally acceptable standards of honest conduct.

49. In Mr. Auer’s notice of defence he claims that the applicant stole the trade mark from him and because there is a lack of explanation as to how they “found” the trade mark that “is proof that there is something to hide”. It is true that the applicant has not provided an explanation of how the mark originated, but what can be gleaned from the evidence is that 1) the applicant clearly had an intention to use the trade mark COLORATURA in the course of trade for jewellery, and 2) it is not for the applicant to explain the mark’s origin. The applicant has satisfied us that it has the goodwill/reputation in COLORATURA and the onus subsequently shifts to the primary respondent to explain whether the adoption of the name would be viewed as commercially acceptable behaviour when judged objectively.

50. The explanation provided does not satisfy us that the primary respondent’s actions were commercially acceptable. It is clear that the registration of a company name, rather than applying for the trade mark, is merely a deviation from the primary respondent’s traditional commercial blocking strategy. It has the same disruptive intention.

51. In view of the above, we are satisfied that a reasonable person in the field would not regard the primary respondent’s actions to be in good faith. Adopting a virtually identical company name 16 days after the launch of a new brand by a world-renowned company such as Cartier, would, in our view, be regarded by a reasonable person in the field as falling below commercially acceptable standards. The company name was not adopted in good faith.

52. The defence based upon section 69(4)(d) of the Act fails.

53. The final defence is based upon:

Section 69(4)(e) - “that the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent.”

54. The onus is on the primary respondent to show why its company name does not adversely affect the applicant’s interests to any significant extent. The onus is not on the applicant.

55. As previously stated, the primary respondent ticked the s.69(4)(e) defence box on the Form CNA1. The only comments made by the primary respondent in reliance on this defence are as follows:

10 interests of the complainant are not adversely affected to any significant extent

Because the applicant can switch to an alternative trademark name at any time. But Cartier does not respect intellectual property and prefers to rob it.

56. The applicant states that ^{[footnote 14]}:

The applicant has developed goodwill in the name of “Coloratura” via the promotion and sale of a high jewellery collection of that name. The Applicant has committed significant investment to the name as described above. In contrast, there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondents have ever held any genuine intention to conduct legitimate business activity via the company name “Coloratura Ltd”. As a result, individuals who encounter “Coloratura Ltd” (on the Companies Register or elsewhere) will believe that company to be associated with the Applicant. Given that the Applicant has no control over the activity or corporate filings of Coloratura Ltd, this situation is inherently disadvantageous to the business interests and reputation of the Applicant.

57. The primary respondent has not filed any evidence to support its defence. Further, bearing in mind that the onus is on the primary respondent to demonstrate why the company name does not adversely affect the applicant’s interests, the fact that the applicant can “switch to an alternative trademark” is not a sufficient explanation. Trade marks, and indeed company names, are usually not plucked from thin air and are often picked following consideration from marketing advisors, clearance searches and once launched it is likely to be expensive to re-brand. Therefore, we do not accept the brief and unsubstantiated explanation provided. On the other hand, the reasons set out by the applicant appear reasonable. Taking all of these factors into account, the defence based upon 69(4)(e) also fails.

Overall outcome

58. As we have dismissed all of the defences, the application succeeds.

59. Therefore, in accordance with section 73(1) of the Act, we make the following order:

(a) COLORATURA LTD shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name ;^{[footnote 15]}

(b) COLORATURA LTD and Erich Auer each shall:

(i) take such steps as are within their power to make, or facilitate the making, of that change;

(ii) not to cause or permit any steps to be taken calculated to result in another company being registered with a name that is an offending name.

60. In accordance with Section 73(3) of the Act, this order may be enforced in the same way as an order of the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.

61. In any event, if no such change is made within one month of the date of this order, we will determine a new company name as per section 73(4) of the Act and will give notice of that change under section 73(5) of the Act.

62. The primary respondent and Mr. Auer have a legal duty under Section 73(1)(b)(ii) of the Act not to cause or permit any steps to be taken calculated to result in another company being registered with an offending name; this includes the current company. Non-compliance may result in an action being brought for contempt of court and may result in a custodial sentence.

Costs

63. As the applicant has been successful, it is entitled to a contribution towards its costs, based upon the scale of costs published in paragraph 10.1 of the Practice Direction:

Filing the application and reviewing the defence: £400
Fee for filing the application: £400
Filing evidence and reviewing the other side’s evidence: £800
Fee for filing evidence: £150

Total: £1750

64. We order Coloratura Ltd and Erich Auer, (jointly) to pay Cartier International AG the sum of £1750 within 21 days of the expiry of the appeal period, or within 21 days of the final determination of this case if any appeal against this decision is unsuccessful. Under section 74(1) of the Act, an appeal can only be made in relation to the decision to uphold the application; there is no right of appeal in relation to costs.

65. Any notice of appeal against this decision must be given within one month of the date of this decision. Appeal is to the High Court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to the Court of Session in Scotland.

66. The company adjudicator must be advised if an appeal is lodged, so that implementation of the order is suspended.

Dated 6 October 2021

Mark King
Company Names Adjudicator

Christopher Bowen
Company Names Adjudicator

Judi Pike
Company Names Adjudicator

1. Para 4 ↩

2. Exhibit LR-15 ↩

3. Para. 6 ↩

4. Para. 7 ↩

5. Exhibit LR-5 ↩

6. Exhibit LR-9 ↩

7. Para. 9 ↩

8. Para. 6 ↩

9. Para. 8 ↩

10. Case T-82/14 ↩

11. Para. 37 of the judgment ↩

12. Para. 31 ↩

13. Para. 16 ↩

14. Para 35 of Mr. Roukine’s witness statement ↩

15. An “offending name” means a name that, by reason of its similarity to the name associated with the applicant in which he claims goodwill, would be likely to be the subject of a direction under section 67 (power of Secretary of State to direct change of name), or to give rise to a further application under section 69. ↩