< Back to latest news & events

Retail Scanner

Paying the price of a blocking order

June 2018

This month the Supreme Court has answered the question as to who should bear the costs of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) implementing website blocking orders in relation to trade mark infringements. Overturning the decisions of the lower courts, the Supreme Court decided that the cost of compliance with the blocking order should be paid by the trade mark owners and not the ISPs.

Background

In the case of Cartier International AG and others v British Telecommunications Plc and another [2018] UKSC 28. the trade mark owners identified 46,000 websites offering counterfeits and sought injunctions requiring the ISPs to block or attempt to block access to these specified websites. The injunction was granted by the High Court and the ISPs were ordered to pay the costs of implementing the website-blocking order. Whilst many injunctions have been granted against ISPs on the application of copyright-owners, this was the first time that a website blocking injunction was granted to protect a trade mark.

The main issue facing the Supreme Court was whether it was correct that the ISPs should have been required to bear the costs of implementing the website-blocking orders. It decided that the lower courts had got the issue wrong and that these costs of compliance should be paid by the trade mark owners.

ISPs as “Innocent Intermediaries”

The Supreme Court held that the role of the ISPs in this particular case was a to provide a passive, technical services with no editorial control and they were unlikely to know and had no duty to discover website content. The Supreme Court emphasised the ISPs were innocent intermediaries, themselves not guilty of trade mark infringement and as such it was not justifiable that they should pay the costs of complying with the blocking injunction. The trade mark owners should pick up these costs.

Responsibilities of Intermediaries

Although “innocent intermediaries” in this case, ISPs are not absolved of responsibility in all circumstances. In this instance, the ISPs were found to be “mere conduits” under Article 12 of the E-commerce Directive owing to their limited role in merely providing a communications network. However, different considerations may apply to intermediary internet services engaging in caching or hosting, as such activities involve greater participation in the infringement and are more likely to infringe national IP laws if a safe harbour immunity is unavailable. The immunity for hosting requires ISPs to take the same steps as soon as it becomes aware of any illegality or of facts from which it is apparent.

Should an intermediary breach such requirements to assist, they will lose such immunity, but whether that results in liability will depend on the provisions of national law.

What the future holds…

This judgment confirms that trade mark owners seeking to block access to websites selling infringing goods should be aware that any injunctions against ISPs will come at a cost. What will be interesting is whether the Courts will in future apply these changes to copyright cases. In the meantime, however, rights holders should approach with caution in seeking injunctions from any third-party internet services that can be considered “mere conduits”. The judgment appears to suggest that the result may be different in actions against other more active providers of internet services including web hosting, internet search engines, portals and internet payment systems. It is however indicated that more is required by such intermediaries rather than mere non-compliance with the conditions of immunity in the E-commerce Directive for such third parties to be liable for costs of a website-blocking injunction.

Latest updates

The EPO Board of Appeal comments on the scope of the morality exclusion from patentability

The recent decision, T1553/22 of the Board of Appeal required the Board to consider the scope of the exclusions from patentability under Article 53(a) EPC. The invention in this case …

Read article

Can intellectual property and foreign investment save struggling European eVTOL companies?

With the ongoing funding difficulties in the European eVTOL sector, we look at the role that intellectual property is likely to play in the prospects for the survival of Lilium …

Read article

Managing IP EMEA Awards 2025

The shortlist for the 20th annual Managing IP EMEA Awards 2025 has been announced, and it is a record-breaking year for HGF’s European team with an incredible 23 nominations! This …

Read article

Designation of a technical standard as a trademark

EUTMR Article 7 (1) (c) and Article 7 (1) (b) – DASH The designation “DASH” of the technical standard/protocol/format for streaming data on the Internet constitutes a descriptive indication in …

Read article

HGF ranked band 4 in Chambers and Partners Global Guide for Germany in 2025

Chambers and Partners Global Guide 2025 is now live. HGF is proud to be ranked as a firm in Germany. HGF is ranked band 4 for: Germany: Intellectual Property: Patent …

Read article

HGF ranked in The Legal 500 Germany 2025

HGF is proud to be ranked in The Legal 500 Germany 2025 guide. The Legal 500 provides the most comprehensive worldwide coverage on recommended Law firms, Lawyers, Attorneys, Advocates, Solicitors, …

Read article

T 1847/22: Procedural considerations in appeal: Re-ordering of requests and the impact on admissibility

Background This case concerned EP 3 085 344 B1, which relates to a wound pad, a self-adhesive member comprising a wound pad. The patent was opposed by two opponents. During …

Read article