Accounts of profits & threats: Luxe World v Touch of Vogue

[Oliver Fairhurst]

Accounts of profits & threats: Luxe World v Touch of Vogue

 Oliver Fairhurst Monday, February 23, 2026 - design rights, IPEC, Luxe World v Tough of Vogue, Oliver Fairhurst, unjustified threats

In a recent case (Luxe World Ltd v Touch of Vogue Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 148 (IPEC)), the court has struck out a claim seeking an account of profits in relation to a claim for unjustified threats and ordered the claimant to specify the amount of its claim and pay the appropriate monetary fee. The case indicates that accounts are not available in threats claims, despite being available in infringement claims. 

Damages and accounts of profits

In IP claims in the UK, claimants will often seek damages or an account of profits from the alleged infringer. Damages are generally compensatory, while an account of profits is intended to deprive the infringer of the benefit it has received (see My Kinda Town Ltd. v Soll [1983] R.P.C. 15 at 48). Those two forms of relief are alternatives, i.e. a claimant cannot obtain both damages and an account of profits. 

Unlike with damages, where there are express statutory bases, an account of profits is an equitable remedy, meaning that the court has discretion as to whether to order it. A party will usually seek to elect between damages and an account following a finding of infringement at trial, following the infringer having given what is known as Island Records v Tring disclosure (where the infringer gives some initial disclosure of the profits made). The amount of money that is ordered to be paid under either basis is then determined at a later quantum inquiry. 

The existence of this election and subsequent inquiry is important not only insofar as it relates to the money that might change hands after trial, it also affects the court fee that is payable. The procedure has been for the past decade that in IP claims where an inquiry is sought, claimants need only pay the lower 'non-monetary' relief fee (which is up to £646), and not the 'money claim' fees (which are up to £10,000). 

Luxe World v Touch of Vogue

This brings us to Luxe World v Touch of Vogue, where both of these issues came into sharp ... relief (*cough*). The claim is for unjustified threats for design right infringement. Luxe World alleges that the defendants, Touch of Vogue and its director Mr Naffee, filed complaints with Amazon alleging that Luxe World's product infringed the defendants' design rights. Amazon took down the listings, and Luxe World sued for unjustified threats under s.26A of the Registered Designs Act 1949 (the "RDA").

Luxe World seeks, in its particulars of claim, an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits. Accordingly, it paid the lower non-monetary fee when it issued its claim. 

The defendants challenged both the entitlement to an account of profits, and the payment of the lower non-monetary court fee, arguing that Luxe World should have to set out the amount of damages it was seeking. They issued an application to strike out the claim for an account, and an order that Luxe World had to state the amount of damages and pay the applicable fee, or pay the maximum fee. 

Section 26C RDA expressly provides for the remedies available for unjustified threats, which are a declaration that the threat was unlawful, an injunction preventing such threats, and "damages in respect of any loss sustained by the aggrieved person by reason of the threat" (emphasis added). Luxe World argued that as an account is an equitable remedy, it does not matter that it is not specified as a remedy in the RDA. 

The judge went through various of the case law relating to accounts of profits, which (broadly) discussed their availability in cases where there was some invasion of a property right (such as, for example, an IP right). Luxe World had relied on AG v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268, where the House of Lords had held that the claimant in that case was entitled to claim the benefit obtained by a traitor in the form of a publishing fee for a book. Its argument was that the defendants had profited by wrongfully filing the Amazon complaints, and that the court should prevent them from benefiting from that conduct.  

The judge rejected Luxe World's arguments, holding that even if Luxe World was correct that there was a freestanding jurisdiction to order an account, it would not be equitable to do so in the circumstances of a claim for unjustified threats. Further, the judge relied on Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA [2008] EWCA Civ 1086, where the Court of Appeal held that, save possibly in exceptional circumstances, accounts are not available in cases not concerning proprietary rights. 

The judge therefore struck out the claim for an account and held that Luxe World needed to quantify its damages and pay the appropriate fee.

Comment

This case shows the differing remedies available to someone aggrieved by a threat for infringement, and someone whose rights have been infringed. That appears to make sense, albeit the 'exceptional circumstances' that may suggest they are available might be relevant where the person making the threat was, perhaps, using the takedown procedure in bad faith. There is a lot of interesting and conflicting law in this area, and scope for further disputes.

Finally, I note that the case did not consider the IP (Enforcement) Regulations 2006, which were implemented in the UK pursuant to the IP Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC. That is because Regulation 3 includes the right to obtain damages for a knowing infringement of an IP right, such damages taking into account "the negative economic consequences, including any lost profits, which the claimant has suffered, and any unfair profits made by the defendant" (emphasis added). The Court of Appeal has previously found that such wording is not inconsistent with the requirement for an election between damages and an account of profits: Hollister Incorporated Dansac AS v Medik Ostomy Supplies Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1419. 

Do you want to reuse the IPKat content? Please refer to our 'Policies' section. If you have any queries or requests for permission, please get in touch with the IPKat team.