What began as a routine dispute over the name of “CRYSTAL BAR” vapes has devolved into a true “war of attrition” between two companies — China’s Shenzhen SKE and the UK’s Bargain Busting Ltd (BBL). The situation escalated to the point where lawyers for both sides began attacking not only their opponents but also each other, using “contempt of court” allegations as a weapon.
It all started when the High Court of Justice ruled in favor of BBL, decreeing that their trademark should be registered. The Court did not issue a direct stay of registration pending appeal, although it did set a deadline for challenging the decision. When the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) inquired with the parties regarding the status of the case, legal chaos ensued. BBL’s lawyers demanded immediate registration, while advocates for the Chinese firm SKE requested the Office to wait until an appeal was filed.
BBL’s legal team perceived this as an attempt to mislead the Office and pervert the course of justice. It reached a point where they filed an application for criminal “contempt of court” not only against SKE but also personally against their barristers and two employees of the law firm. Furthermore, they even threatened the government agency (UK IPO) itself with legal action.
However, Judge Paul Matthews, presiding over the case, decided to put an end to this practice. He noted that, recently, lawyers have increasingly used “contempt of court” allegations simply as another stick to beat an opponent or as a marketing tool to demonstrate “fearlessness” to their clients. The judge emphasized that such actions merely waste court resources and clients’ money, preventing others from resolving their disputes more quickly.
The judge reminded the parties of three constitutional principles of justice: every citizen must have free access to the court; everyone has the right to an impartial hearing; and no one has the right to usurp the functions of the court once a case has been submitted for consideration. He ruled that standard letters from lawyers to the Patent Office outlining their position do not constitute a crime or an attempt to deceive. It is simply part of professional discussion, and the final decision ultimately rests with the state body.
As a result, the application for “contempt of court” was dismissed. This ruling serves as an important signal to the entire legal market: the court will not allow justice to be turned into a circus where professional lawyers attempt to intimidate one another with procedural severity instead of resolving the substance of the dispute. The Crystal Bar story continues, but now, at least, it has returned to the realm of civilized discussion regarding intellectual property rights.
Founder of Research & Patent group Intectica, author of patent algorithms for solving problems in the pharmaceutical industry, patent attorney certified in all intellectual property objects (Patents, Design, TM), with education in chemistry and law, chief expert of the patent institution of Ukraine UKRPATENT (1997-2004). Member of international organizations, including ECTA, PTMG, UAM, lecturer and blogger.
