Lifestyle Equities v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club: costs ruling after failed strike-out bid
Lifestyle Equities CVvRoyal County of Berkshire Polo Club
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 19 September 2019
- Citation
- [2019] EWHC 2413 (Ch)
Losing an interim application in trademark litigation can mean paying the other side's costs in full, even if their conduct wasn't perfect.
Lifestyle Equities tried to strike out part of a trademark defence brought by Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club and lost. This ruling deals with the costs of that failed attempt, and the club's side came out ahead.
What happened
Lifestyle Equities had applied to strike out, or get summary judgment against, parts of the defence and counterclaim brought by the fourth and fifth defendants in a long-running trademark dispute over Polo Club branding. That application failed in an earlier judgment. This decision deals with what came next: who pays the costs of that failed attempt, whether Lifestyle Equities could appeal, and whether an interim costs payment already ordered could be paused while any appeal was considered.
What did the court decide in Lifestyle Equities CV v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club?
The court found that the fourth and fifth defendants had won the earlier application and were entitled to their costs. It assessed the total recoverable sum at £56,136.12, after trimming a few specific items and knocking off a small amount for delay in replying to correspondence and serving evidence late. The court refused permission to appeal on all seven grounds Lifestyle Equities put forward, covering both the costs decision and the substance of whether the defences were properly pleaded. It also declined to pause the interim costs payment that had already been ordered.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that losing an interim skirmish in trademark litigation, like a strike-out application, can be expensive even before the main case is decided, because the losing side usually pays the winner's costs there and then.
- A party's own delays or shortcomings, such as replying late to correspondence, will usually only trim a costs award slightly rather than wipe it out.
- Permission to appeal interim costs and case management decisions is hard to get. Courts tend to let these rulings stand unless there's a clear and significant error.
- If you're considering a strike-out or summary judgment application against a trademark defence, it's worth budgeting for the real possibility of paying the other side's costs if it fails.
Things to be aware of
- This is a costs and procedure ruling, not a decision on who actually owns or infringed the Polo Club trademarks, so it doesn't tell you who will win the underlying case.
- The reductions made to the costs bill were small (around 2.5% for delay), showing courts are usually reluctant to penalise a winning party heavily for imperfect conduct.
- Permission to appeal was refused on every ground raised, including substantive points about the pleadings, which shows how high the bar is at this stage.
The businesses involved
Lifestyle Equities CV
Claimant in a long-running trademark dispute over Polo Club branding. An individual claimant is also named in the case but isn't described here.
Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd
Registered in England in 1985 and still active, classified under operation of sports facilities. Operates a polo club near Windsor, Berkshire, and holds 13 UK trademarks on the UK trademark register.
- Companies House
- 01903088 Active
- Incorporated
- April 1985
- Registered office
- London
- Business activity
- Operation of sports facilities
- UK trademarks
- 13
What others said about it
- Lexology notes that in a separate dispute, The Polo/Lauren Company tried to invalidate Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club's trademark registration, showing the club's branding has faced challenges from more than one direction.Source: Lexology, April 2018
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2019] EWHC 2413 (Ch) on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 27 October 2026. Report an error.
