Following today's ruling from Justice Peter Smith, motorsport lawyer Tim Lowles declares the result a "score draw".

"A score draw," said Lowles a member of the motorsport law team at Collyer Bristow one of the world's leading specialist teams. "Both parties got part of what they wanted but not all of it. Two Lotus teams will remain on the grid unless Group Lotus successfully appeals. Even if they do appeal it would be very unlikely to get a decision in the next 12 months. An example of brinksmanship, where neither party backed down but ultimately neither party won.

"Team Lotus was found to have been in breach of licence agreement," he continued, 'almost immediately after the licence agreement was entered into'. "This was on the basis that they entered into a number of contracts without prior approval of Group Lotus, particularly in respect of merchandising, which the Judge found to be a serious breach.

"Group Lotus was therefore entitled to terminate the agreement and was awarded damages in respect of the merchandising breaches only. These damages have not yet been quantified but I would not expect them to be significant.

"The judge found that Group Lotus was the rightful holder of the "Lotus" trade marks and that the "Team Lotus" registered trade mark should be revoked on the basis of 'non-use' i.e. it had not been used for 5 years in the context of F1 racing.

"However the Judge found that after the Lotus company was floated in 1968 both the 'Lotus' and 'Team Lotus' brands were treated separately and that both established a significant amount of goodwill. As such both parties were entitled to use the marks they claimed to own.

"The Judge further found that there would be no obvious confusion by F1 users as to the two brands, i.e people would know the difference between the Lotus Renault team and Team Lotus.

"The Judge appears to summarise the dispute best when he says: "It is unfortunate in my view that this case came before the courts and was incapable of resolution beforehand. However if the parties cannot agree to resolve a dispute that is why the courts are here. At the end of the day I cannot help feeling that nevertheless the parties are better competing against each other on the F1 racetrack. Equally I cannot help avoiding the feeling that F1 followers would actually find that enhances F1 and they would be interested to see which of the two Lotus cars was more successful and which then might possibly be better placed to claim to be successors to the Colin Chapman mantle. "

"I understand that Group Lotus will appeal the decision on the basis that having two 'Lotus' teams will lead to the public being confused. The Judge was clear that he felt there was no confusion and GL will only succeed if they can establish there was an error in law in the judge's findings and will not be able to questions his findings of fact. From a first read this would appear difficult."