Crystal Bar: Contempt Application Against Litigant and Its Lawyers Struck Out

Key Takeaways

• Contempt application against SKE and lawyers struck out as unjustified
• UK IPO ordered to register BBL’s CRYSTAL BAR trademark promptly
• Judge warned contempt misuse drains judicial resources and harms litigants
• Ongoing appeal will test human rights limits on injunctions

Pulse Analysis

The trademark battle over “CRYSTAL BAR” illustrates how a seemingly narrow branding dispute can evolve into a protracted legal war. Shenzhen SKE Technology Ltd claimed prior rights to the word “CRYSTAL” in vape signage, but the High Court found its evidence insufficient, allowing Bargain Busting Ltd’s mark to move toward registration. The UK Intellectual Property Office, after a brief exchange of letters between the parties’ counsel, was instructed to complete the registration without delay, underscoring the importance of clear, documented priority in trademark filings.

The contempt proceedings sparked by BBL’s accusation that SKE’s lawyers misled the IPO highlight a growing trend of leveraging contempt as a pressure tactic. HHJ Paul Matthews, referencing recent appellate authority, emphasized that contempt must serve a genuine public interest and not be used as a strategic weapon. By striking out the application, the court reinforced the principle that merely filing letters to a regulatory body does not constitute contempt, preserving judicial resources and protecting litigants from costly, unfounded accusations.

For IP practitioners, the decision serves as a cautionary tale: aggressive contempt claims can backfire and erode professional credibility. The pending appeal concerning a preliminary injunction raises further questions about the balance between freedom of expression and the need to curb unjustified threats in commercial disputes. Firms should focus on substantiating trademark priority and reserve contempt actions for truly egregious conduct, thereby maintaining confidence in the UK’s IP enforcement framework.