Case No: HC-2014-000614
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 857 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION

Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NLL

Date: 27 March 2015

Before :

THE HON MR JUSTICE ARNOLD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	PINTEREST, INC.	Claimant	
	- and -		
	(1)	PREMIUM INTEREST LIMITED
(2)	ALEX HEARN	Defendants	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mark Vanhegan QC (instructed by Baker & McKenzie LLP) for the Claimant
Michael Edenborough QC and Chris Aikens (instructed by Brandsmiths) for the Defendants

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
MR JUSTICE ARNOLD : 
1.	This judgment deals with four issues arising out of my judgment dated 24 March 2015 on which the parties made written submissions. 
2.	The first issue concerns the Defendants’ undertakings. Pinterest contends that these undertakings were offered irrevocably, and therefore should be recited in the order. The Defendants contend that they were offered in support of their application for a stay, but were not accepted by the Court because it declined to order a stay and hence should not be included in the order. I accept the Defendants’ analysis of the situation.
3.	The second issue concerns the fate of paragraph 26 of the Defence. The Defendants are content to submit to an order that they file an Amended Defence deleting paragraph 26, but resist an order striking it out or granting summary judgment in respect of it. In my view the correct order is that there be summary judgment in favour of Pinterest in respect of the issue raised by paragraph 26. That will avoid the need for the Defendants to serve an Amended Defence.
4.	The third issue concerns the costs of Pinterest’s application. Pinterest contends that it is the successful party and that costs should follow the event. The Defendants submit that the hearing resulted in a clarification of both parties’ cases which upon analysis rendered both issues moot and hence the right order is costs in the case. In the alternative the Defendants say that Pinterest should only recover its costs in relation to the second issue. In my judgment Pinterest is entitled to its costs of the application in relation to both issues. So far as the first issue is concerned, it is true that this fell away, but it only fell away because the Defendants accepted that the filing of the Defendants’ CTM Application constituted a threat, which led to Pinterest accepting that its claim should be assessed as at 31 January 2012. The Defendants contend that the costs relating to this issue could have been avoided if Pinterest had sought an admission; but the Defendants ought to have made the admission in their Defence. As to the second issue, the Defendants fought and lost. It is too late for them now to suggest that it also fell away.
5.	Pinterest seeks a summary assessment of its costs of its application in the sum of £20,000, 79% of its actual costs. The Defendants do not challenge the figure, as opposed to the principle upon which it is based. Accordingly I will summarily assess these costs in the sum of £20,000. 
6.	The fourth issue concerns the costs of the Defendants’ application. The Defendants accept that, having lost, they must pay Pinterest’s costs.  Pinterest seeks a summary assessment of its costs of this application in the sum of £16,000, 76% of its actual costs. The Defendants contend that the appropriate figure is £10,000. Pinterest’s solicitors’ hourly rates and counsel’s fees are slightly on the high side. I will summarily assess these costs in the sum of £15,000.