The judgment emphasizes the necessity of disclosing all relevant documents for fair trial proceedings and rejects bifurcation of trials in intellectual property cases as it delays final resolution.

JUDGMENT

Kenneth St James JC:

A. Prelusion

[1] In the process of Discovery, how many and what kind of documents must a party disclose? And should the trial of a Writ action be bifurcated?

B. Key Asserted Facts

[2] This is a trade mark infringement and passing off action. The plaintiff (RCB) sells clothing and clothing accessories. They do so with the following trade mark, which I will call the 'RCB Polo Club Mark':

[3] Note that the RCB Polo Club Mark contains the image of a polo player and the words 'Milano Polo Club Marks'.

[4] RCB pleads that they have the exclusive rights to use the RCB Polo Club Mark. They aver that they have expended much money to promote it. They assert that because of their promotion and advertisement of the RCB Polo Club Mark, they have acquired and generated substantial goodwill in the mark.

[5] The defendant (Milano) is a wholesaler and retailer of clothing and fashion wear. Their products bear the following marks, which I will refer to as the 'Milano World Marks':

[6] Note that the Milano Word Marks contain only the words 'CLUB' and 'MILANO'.

[7] RCB submits that it is visually obvious that the two respective sets of marks-the 'RCB Polo Club Mark' and the 'Milano Word Marks' - are different and are easily distinguishable.

[8] RCB discovered that Milano uses two marks that RCB asserts are visually similar to the 'RCB Polo Club Mark'. These are the two marks, which I will refer to as the 'Milano Polo Club Marks':

[9] It is pertinent to note that the Milano Polo Club Marks contain images of a polo player and the words 'Milano Polo Club Marks', just like the RCB Polo Club Mark.

[10] RCB thus alleges that the Milano Polo Club Marks closely resemble the RCB Polo Club Mark. Not only that, but the Milano Polo Club Marks are rather dissimilar to Milano's own Milano Word Marks.

[11] RCB asserts that instead of using their own Milano Word Marks, Milano is purposefully using the Milano Polo Club Marks, which contain the images of a polo player and the words 'Milano Polo Club Marks'.

[12] RCB says that by doing this, Milano is riding on the goodwill and brand reputation generated by RCB in their RCB Polo Club Mark.

[13] RCB asserts that these Milano Polo Club Marks are allegedly offending marks.

C. RCB's Application For The Production Of Documents

[14] RCB applied for the production of certain documents which they assert are in Milano's possession, custody and control. RCB wants these documents because they need them to go to trial to prove liability and get damages as their remedy.

[15] RCB requested for documents from Milano-documentary evidence that may prove both liability and the quantum of damages. Milano was unresponsive. RCB then filed an Application under O 24 of the Rules of 2012, for the production of these documents.

[16] RCB sought the production of Milano's documents that disclose: (1) Milano's sales and turnover figures that relate to the goods bearing the Milano Polo Club Marks; (2) the particulars of Milano's branches and outlets; (3) the period of time when Milano advertised and sold goods bearing the Milano Polo Club Marks-to disclose since when Milano began to use the Milano Polo Club Marks; (4) the particulars of any exhibitions where Milano advertised and sold goods bearing the Milano Polo Club Marks.

[17] Milano resisted the Application to produce.

[18] Milano's strongest win-or-lose points are these:

i. RCB has failed to establish that these documents are both relevant and necessary for the disposal of the action.

ii. The production of the documents sought is premature, because liability (for infringement or passing off) has yet to be determined against Milano. These documents are needed only at the later stage of the assessment of damages.

D. Several Guiding Authorities On Bifurcating The Trial

[19] A starting point on this issue of whether to bifurcate a trial into a determination on liability first, and then the quantum of damages later, is the 1956 United Kingdom Court of Appeal case of Polskie Towarzystwo H