BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> The Codemasters Software Company Ltd v Automobile Club De L'ouest [2009] EWHC 3194 (Ch) (25 November 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/3194.html Cite as: [2010] FSR 13, [2009] EWHC 3194 (Ch) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CHANCERY DIVISION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Strand. London. WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
THE CODEMASTERS SOFTWARE COMPANY LIMITED |
Claimant/Part 20 Defendant |
|
- and - |
||
AUTOMOBILE CLUB DE L'OUEST |
Defendant/ Part 20 Claimant |
____________________
Michael Hicks (instructed by Messrs Wragge & Co.) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 24th November 2009
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Warren :
Introduction
The evidence
The proposed expert evidence
Lamborghini and Porsche cars from the Game as it had done with the Ferrari cars. That such failure was unreasonable can be shown, he says, by comparing the likely loss of profit as a result of withdrawing the cars - according to him a very small loss - compared with the amount of the licence fee and royalty - a far greater figure. Accordingly, ACO must he says be allowed to adduce this evidence to shown that the settlement of claims by Lamborghini and Porsche, or the avoidance of future claims, by taking a licence was not reasonable.
issue not only requires consideration of Questions 1 and 2 (which is no doubt true) but also requires consideration of other issues such as the practicality of removing vehicles from the Game. He says that Codemasters' own evidence is directed at this issue so that ACO should have the opportunity of responding on the basis of expert opinion. Although this issue is to some extent a question of law and common sense, some aspects require an understanding of and evidence of how the games industry operates.
The Law
"which treats the issue as one concerned with the measure of damages, not with mitigation. More particularly, whereas if this were a question of mitigation the issue would be whether the plaintiff acted reasonably, Biggin v Permanite must be taken, for reason which I gave in [DSL Group v Unisys] to have clearly established that the test is whether terms of the settlement were (objectively) reasonable terms."
The present case
Conclusion