Advertisement

“Cartier”

Decision of the Supreme Court 13 June 2018 – Case No. [2018] UKSC 28
  • Charlotte May QC and Jaani Riordan v. Adrian Speck QC and Benet Brandreth QC E-Commerce Directive, Arts. 12–15, 18; Information Society Directive, Arts. 3, 8, 11; case law concerning website blocking injunctions
Decision • Intellectual Property Law UK
  • 20 Downloads
  1. 1.

    In principle, intellectual property right-holders should indemnify ISPs against their compliance costs when an injunction is obtained against them to prevent the use of their facilities by wrongdoers for unlawful purposes.

     
  2. 2.

    Such indemnity must be limited to reasonable compliance costs.

     
  3. 3.

    Furthermore, it is crucial that the intermediary in question is legally innocent – that it acts as a “mere conduit”.

     
  4. 4.

    Different considerations may apply to intermediaries engaging in caching or hosting governed by Arts. 13 and 14 of the E-Commerce Directive, because these operations involve a greater degree of participation in the infringement, which is more likely to infringe national laws protecting intellectual property rights if the conditions of immunity are not satisfied. That must, however, depend on the precise facts and on the relevant provisions of national law.

     

Keywords

Internet service providers (ISPs) Burden of costs Intellectual property infringement Innocent intermediary Compliance costs Website blocking injunctions 

Copyright information

© Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charlotte May QC and Jaani Riordan v. Adrian Speck QC and Benet Brandreth QC E-Commerce Directive, Arts. 12–15, 18; Information Society Directive, Arts. 3, 8, 11; case law concerning website blocking injunctions

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations