Wilko Retail Ltd v Buyology Ltd, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court
Wilko, the commercial retail operator, objected to Buyology’s sale of goods under the “Wilko” brand without Wilko’s consent. Buyology, a small retailer, admitted having done so and gave an undertaking not to sell any Wilko-branded products without Wilko’s consent again. The sales did actually continue, although Buyology’s case was that they were small. The parties settled, but Wilko sought disclosure of the suppliers’ details under a so-called Norwich Pharmacal claim. Buyology refused on the basis that the retail industry was small and close-knit and if Buyology was forced to disclose its suppliers’ details, there would no longer be any trust in Buyology.
The High Court agreed with Buyology and said that Buyology’s business might suffer irreparable harm if there was disclosure. Sometimes, defendants had only themselves to blame, but that was not the case here. Until Wilko had raised a complaint, Buyology was not aware that it was selling infringing goods. Once it had been put on notice, Buyology was not quite as efficient as it could have been in not selling Wilko products, but that was the extent of it; there was no deliberate attempt to sell infringing products. Unlike Buyology if there was an order issued, Wilko would not suffer irreparable harm if there was no order, but could be compensated by money damages.
