Supreme Court judgment on website-blocking order
In a judgment between Cartier and BT, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal made by the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who were concerned with having to bear various costs of implementing the website-blocking order, previously decided by The Court of Appeal.
Mishcon de Reya's Peter Nunn, Litigation Legal Director in the Intellectual Property Group says:
"The Supreme Court's judgment recognises that the ISPs are innocent intermediaries and should not have to pay for complying with a website blocking order made against websites which include infringing material or are selling counterfeit products. The Court of Appeal had suggested, in effect, that such costs are the 'cost of doing business' for ISPs, particularly given they have been given immunity from infringement actions. However, whilst the Supreme Court's decision confirms that the costs of implementing website blocking orders is for rights owners to meet, they remain a very powerful tool for dealing with the significant problems presented by online infringement – in this case alone, there were some 46,000 websites offering infringing copies of the brand owners' goods."
For more information, please contact email@example.com / 020 7637 0656