Court of Appeal Clarifies Test for Threats Injunctions
Published: 1 September 2026
The Court of Appeal has delivered an important ruling on interim relief in trade mark threat cases. Bargain Busting Limited, which owns several UK registrations incorporating the word CRYSTAL for vaping products, sent letters before claim to distributors and retailers of competing goods. Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd, a rival supplier, challenged the communications as unjustified threats under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and sought an interim injunction.
The High Court granted the order. On appeal, the Court of Appeal confirmed that applications for interim injunctions affecting freedom of expression are governed by the Human Rights Act 1998, section 12(3). This requires the court to be satisfied that the claimant is “more likely than not” to succeed at trial. The decision provides clear guidance on the threshold and underscores the risks of issuing pre-action correspondence without careful assessment of validity challenges or prior agreements to mediate.
Small-business owners should obtain specialist advice before sending any threat letters to avoid costly injunction applications.
The High Court granted the order. On appeal, the Court of Appeal confirmed that applications for interim injunctions affecting freedom of expression are governed by the Human Rights Act 1998, section 12(3). This requires the court to be satisfied that the claimant is “more likely than not” to succeed at trial. The decision provides clear guidance on the threshold and underscores the risks of issuing pre-action correspondence without careful assessment of validity challenges or prior agreements to mediate.
Small-business owners should obtain specialist advice before sending any threat letters to avoid costly injunction applications.
Summarised in our own words from public sources.