F1: Marussia and Manor in trademark dispute

A summary judgment has been issued after Marussia claimed Manor Grand Prix Racing infringed its trademark by using its name during the 2015 Formula 1 season.

In legal documents, the claim stated Marussia licensed the trademark to Manor to use as its Formula 1 team and chassis name, but that the license came to an end on Dec. 31, 2014. It added Manor continued to use "Marussia" as the name of its Formula 1 team and chassis for 2015 after the outfit was saved from bankruptcy administration.

If Manor changed its chassis name from Marussia without consent from F1's commercial rights holder, it would lose entitlement to prize money based on previous seasons.

Manor has defended the claim on five grounds, firstly suggesting Marussia "impliedly consented" to the use of the trademark. It added Marussia estopped – in other words "is barred" – from asserting its rights as owner of the trademark. Third, it said the use of the trademark did not give rise to any "likelihood of confusion" on the part of the relevant public for the purpose of Article 9.1 (b) of the Community Trademark Regulation.

Manor added the trademark does not have "a reputation in the community" for the purpose of Article 9.1 (c) of the aforementioned regulation.

In the fifth and final defense, it said its use of the trademark constituted use of its own name "in accordance with honest practices" for the purpose of Article 12 of the regulation.

In conclusion, the judge said Manor has "no real prospect" of proving that its use of the claimant's trademark was with the claimant's consent. He concluded the estoppel defense is not available to Manor, and that it is "improbable" the trademark defences under Article 9 and Article 12 would succeed.

The judge added there is power to make a conditional order requiring the defendant to provide security if it wishes to pursue those defenses. If Manor follows the path, security of £1.75 million [$2.5m] must be provided.

Manor must now decide whether it wants to pursue defenses three, four and five. It may also decide to appeal the summary judgment on defenses one and two. The team described Marussia's claims as "speculative."

"Marussia put the company [the F1 team] into administration in 2014," a spokesperson told Autosport. "We made an offer to acquire the team, including the chassis, which they readily accepted, perhaps assuming we would not be able to get the team up and running again. Now that we have, they have launched these speculative claims."

The document also stated the claimant has brought a claim of "passing off" but that is not the subject of this summary judgment.

It also stated the defendant has a pending application to plead a counterclaim for £520,000 [$748,000] not paid under the Team Partner Agreement.

Originally on Autosport.com