Louise Stewart

INITIAL WRIT

SHERIFFDOM OF SOUTH STRATHCLYDE, DUMFRIES & GALLOWAY

AT AYR

In causa

LAS VEGAS CHAUFFEUR SERVICE, 12 Rose Street, Kilmarnock KA1 1BO Pursuer.

Against

LAS VEGAS PARTIES, 148 High Street, Ayr

Defender.

The Pursuer respectively crave the Court:-

For interdict against the defenders from passing off their business by selling, advertising or exposing for sale in Scotland, vehicles, premises, advertisements in connection with any chauffeur limousine service by the defenders, described as ‘Las Vegas Parties’, bearing the name or mark ‘Las Vegas’ or a name and mark comprising the words ‘Las Vegas’ or any other name or mark so closely resembling the name or mark ‘Las Vegas’ as to be calculated to pass as a chauffeur limousine service by the pursuers; and for interdict ad interim; and for the expenses of the action.

CONDESCENDENCE 1. The Pursuer is a business operating from the address stated in the instance. The Defenders are a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and having their registered office at 12 Princess St. Edinburgh and having their actual place of trade at the address stated in the instance. This court accordingly has jurisdiction. The Pursuers seek Interdict to stop the Defender from using the name ‘Las Vegas’ in their business. The Pursuers have no reason to believe that there is any agreement to prorogate jurisdiction over the subject matter of this cause to another court. The pursuer has no reason to believe that there are any proceedings pending between the parties before any other court involving the same cause of action.

2. The Pursuers carry on a chauffeur limousine service known as ‘Las Vegas Chauffeur Service’ and have done so since 2012 and are well established in the Ayrshire area. The Defenders recently set up a business in Ayr trading under the name ‘Las Vegas Parties’ in an attempt to deceive existing and potential customers of the Pursuer’s business into thinking the two companies are related. The Defender’s similar advertising campaign to the Pursuer’s is a deliberate attempt at passing off both companies as one and the same.

3. Confusion amongst clients as to the difference between the two companies is hindering the Pursuer’s business due to increasing customer complaints against the Defenders and this action is accordingly necessary.

PLEAS-IN-LAW

1. The Pursuers who have set up a successful business prior to the Defenders and are now suffering economic loss and hardship due to bad practices of the Defender’s passing off as condescended upon are entitled to Interdict thereof. 2. The sum sued for being reasonable, Decree should be granted.

Signed

, Solicitor for the pursuer