A UK High Court ruling dated August 20, 2026 has ordered Shenzhen SKE Technology Co. Ltd. to provide £569,039 in security for costs in its ongoing design infringement dispute with Vapepen London and other defendants. The lawsuit centers on SKE’s registered design used for its CRYSTAL-branded e-cigarette products and is formally identified as Shenzhen SKE Technology Co. Ltd v Vapepen London Ltd & Ors, Case No. HP-2024-000022.
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.
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.
Crystal Bar Infringement Trial Remains Ahead
The £569,039 security-for-costs order does not resolve the underlying Crystal Bar design infringement dispute.
The UK High Court has set a 14-day trial window beginning January 11, 2027 for the substantive liability issues in the case. The upcoming proceedings are expected to examine SKE’s allegations of registered design infringement and passing off, along with the defendants’ challenges to the design’s validity and their other defenses.
The August 20, 2026 ruling is procedural and deals specifically with security for litigation costs. It does not establish whether SKE or the defendants will win the Crystal Bar design dispute. That question will be determined during the substantive trial based on the evidence and legal arguments presented by both sides.