Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

On 17 October 2014, the court handed down judgment in a case involving Company A and Company B, deciding to make orders substantially in the form sought by Company A on the application before the court ("the Main Application"). During preparation of evidence for the Main Application, Company A discovered two new websites ("the New Websites") that accounted for a significant portion of relevant search results and which were initially legitimate but later identified as counterfeiting sites. Company A made trap purchases from these New Websites before the Main Application hearing, but the goods were received and analysed only after the hearing, preventing inclusion of the New Websites in the Main Application.

On 11 November 2014, further argument was heard regarding the form of the order on the Main Application and related matters. Shortly before this hearing, Company A launched a further application ("the Supplementary Application") to block the New Websites. The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) were not prepared to address the Supplementary Application at that time, leading to an adjournment. Subsequently, the ISPs indicated they did not oppose the court making an order on the Supplementary Application similar to that made on the Main Application. After considering the evidence and correspondence, the court decided it was appropriate to make an order against the New Websites, applying the same reasoning as for the original targeted websites.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should grant an order blocking the New Websites identified as counterfeiting sites following the Main Application.
2. Whether the reasoning and orders made in the Main Application should apply mutatis mutandis to the New Websites in the Supplementary Application.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented by Company A demonstrating that the New Websites were responsible for a substantial portion of counterfeit-related search results and were operating as counterfeiting websites. Although the New Websites were not part of the original Main Application due to timing of evidence, the court applied the same rationale as used for the Target Websites in the Main Application. The ISPs' indication of non-opposition to a similar order further supported the court's decision to grant the order in respect of the New Websites. The court concluded that had the New Websites been included in the Main Application, it would have made an order against them at that time.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to grant an order blocking the New Websites identified as counterfeiting sites. This order was made on the same basis as the order in the Main Application. The direct effect is that the New Websites are subject to the court’s blocking order, preventing their operation in the relevant jurisdiction. The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications or establish new precedent beyond the application of existing reasoning to these additional websites.