SKE Crystal Bar Case: UK High Court Orders £569,039 Security for Costs

The UK High Court has ordered Shenzhen SKE Technology Co. Ltd to provide £569,039 in security for costs as its design dispute involving Crystal-branded e-cigarette products moves toward trial. The order is significant because it concerns the financial security required for the litigation, not a finding that SKE infringed the defendants’ rights or a final judgment on the underlying design dispute.

Shenzhen SKE Technology Co. Ltd has been ordered by the UK High Court to provide £569,039 in security for costs in its ongoing Crystal Bar design infringement case. The August 20, 2026 order concerns litigation costs rather than damages or the merits of the underlying infringement dispute, with the substantive trial scheduled for January 2027.

The court’s decision relates to litigation costs rather than the merits of the underlying design dispute. The £569,039 is not a fine, penalty, or damages award, and the ruling does not determine whether SKE or the defendants will ultimately prevail in the Crystal Bar case.

What the £569,039 Order Actually Means

The £569,039 figure is a security-for-costs order, not a damages award. In other words, the court has not ordered SKE to pay £569,039 because it found the company liable for design infringement.

Instead, the security is intended to protect the defendants against potential legal costs as the dispute moves toward trial. The order therefore addresses the financial risk surrounding the litigation rather than deciding the central question of whether the Crystal Bar design infringes the rights relied upon in the case.

That distinction is important when interpreting the latest development. SKE remains involved in the underlying proceedings, and the substantive design dispute has not yet been decided by the court.

Why Did the Court Require Security?

The security issue arose from concerns about the practical recovery of costs if the defendants ultimately succeeded. The court considered the parties’ financial circumstances and the information available about SKE’s position.

The defendants had sought a substantially larger amount, around £880,000, but the court ordered security of £569,039 instead. The difference is important because it shows that the court did not simply accept the full amount requested.

The order should therefore be viewed as a measured procedural decision. It establishes a financial requirement for the continuation of the litigation while leaving the underlying design-infringement allegations to be determined separately.

SKE’s Crystal Bar Design Dispute in the UK

SKE has brought proceedings against Vapepen London Ltd, Parmeet Singh Kukreja, Bargain Busting Limited, and Tarlochan Singh Bindra. The company alleges infringement of UK Registered Design No. 6213529, along with a passing-off claim connected with its CRYSTAL-branded e-cigarettes.

The defendants deny the allegations and have challenged the validity of SKE’s registered design, including arguments concerning earlier disclosures. They have also disputed SKE’s claimed goodwill.

The litigation is therefore focused on several substantive questions, including whether the defendants infringed SKE’s registered design and whether the design itself is valid. Those issues have not been decided by the August 20 security-for-costs ruling.

UK High Court Sets Security at £569,039

The defendants originally requested approximately £880,000 in security for costs. After considering the parties’ evidence and arguments, Deputy Master Dovar ordered SKE to provide a lower total of £569,039.

The security is to be provided in installments:

• £77,000 by 4:00 PM on September 11, 2026
• £42,039 three weeks before the pre-trial review
• £450,000 three weeks before the start of the substantive trial

The order also provides that failure to supply the required security could result in the proceedings being stayed, with the defendants able to seek further orders concerning SKE’s claim.

Why the Court Required Security for Costs

A major issue was whether the defendants could recover their litigation costs if SKE ultimately lost the case and was ordered to pay them.

SKE relied partly on financial information from its UK subsidiary, SKE E-CIGS UK Ltd, as well as information concerning its majority shareholder, Shenzhen Yinghe Technology Co. Ltd. However, the court found that SKE had not provided enough information about its own financial position to remove the defendants’ concerns.

The judgment indicates that SKE appeared to generate substantial profits, but the available information did not provide a sufficiently complete picture of its assets, liabilities, encumbrances, and current financial position. The court therefore concluded that there was a sufficient basis for ordering security for costs.

Importantly, the ruling does not state that SKE is unable to pay a potential adverse costs order. Instead, the court’s concern centered on whether the available evidence adequately demonstrated that the defendants would be able to recover their costs if SKE were unsuccessful.

Court Considers Enforcement of UK Costs Orders in China

The defendants also argued that recovering an English court costs order in China could present substantial difficulties because SKE is based in China.

The court considered expert evidence concerning the enforcement of English judgments in China. SKE argued that monetary judgments, including costs orders, should be distinguished from the enforcement of foreign intellectual property rights.

Deputy Master Dovar did not treat the potential enforcement of a UK costs judgment in China as equivalent to enforcing a foreign intellectual property judgment. The judgment therefore did not make SKE’s Chinese location, by itself, the decisive reason for ordering security.

Instead, the court’s decision was principally connected with the defendants’ concerns about SKE’s financial position and the limited information available to assess its ability to satisfy a future adverse costs order.

SKE Crystal Bar Case Timeline

Use:

Final Takeaway

The £569,039 security-for-costs order is an important development in SKE’s Crystal Bar litigation, but it should not be interpreted as a judgment on the design-infringement allegations themselves.

For SKE, the immediate issue is meeting the court-ordered security requirement while preparing for the next stage of the proceedings. For the defendants, the order provides greater protection against potential unrecovered litigation costs.

The key question therefore remains unresolved: whether the disputed Crystal Bar design ultimately infringes the rights at issue. That question is expected to be addressed in the substantive proceedings scheduled for January 2027.