header-logo header-logo

High Court: Pirate websites can be blocked

23 October 2014
Issue: 7627 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The High Court has jurisdiction to stop internet service providers (ISP) allowing access to websites that breach trade mark rights by selling counterfeit goods, it has held, in the first case of its type.

The case, Cartier International and Others vs BSkyB and others [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch), concerned the trade mark rights of Richemont, owner of luxury brands such as Cartier and Mont Blanc. Richemont selected sites that wholly infringed its trade marks and sought an injunction against an ISP to block access.

The question arose of whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant an injunction—the court held that it did.

Jeremy Blum, partner at Bristows, says: “This decision is a real development for brand owners in fighting online counterfeiting.

“Since L’Oreal v eBay and the recent s 97A copyright cases it was generally viewed that trade mark owners ought to be able to obtain an injunction against an ISP intermediary to block access to websites that infringe trade mark rights, and this is the first decision confirming the UK courts have jurisdiction to grant such an injunction as well as setting out the principles to be applied in determining if an injunction should be made.

“Broadly whether an injunction against an intermediary should be made, the court must assess whether the injunction is proportionate, effective, dissuasive and not a barrier to legitimate trade. The interesting point in future will be the range of websites that will be able to be blocked; for example this case involved websites wholly engaged in infringing activity.”

Issue: 7627 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll