High Court, in proceedings seeking damages and injunctive reliefs for alleged trademark infringement and passing off of the plaintiff's reputation and goodwill in the mark in the provision of fund management services, refuses to order further and better particulars of pleas made in the defence, on the grounds that: the replies provided give the plaintiff the broad outline of the defences which it will meet at trial and that anything further is a matter for evidence at trial.
Trademark infringement - passing off - Order 19 rule 7 RSC - application for further and better particulars of matters pleaded in defence - assertion of reputation and goodwill infringement - alleged well-known mark - defence denying claims of tortious conduct - counterclaim seeking revocation of mark - abbreviations in defence - use of further abbreviations of plaintiff's name - trade mark searches - defence of laches - correspondence between parties - legal principles governing requirement to provide particulars of pleading - parties to know broad outline of what is going to be said at trial - pleadings should contain facts and not evidence - in complex cases more detailed particulars may be required - range of evidence - one function of particulars is to limit range of discovery - plaintiff knows in relevant part the case being made by defendant regarding its use of an abbreviation of plaintiff's name - plaintiff knows in broad outline defence raised of 'descriptive use in accordance with honest practices' - plaintiff not entitled to know in broad outline case it might have to meet at a trial of separate proceedings based on reply which refers to a separate passing off claim - no principle that extraneous matters raised in pleading must be fully particularised - application refused -