Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2012] All ER (D) 244 (Oct)
Neutral Citation: [2012] EWHC 2642 (Ch)
Court: Chancery Division
Judge:

Sir William Blackburne

Representation Thomas Moody‑Stuart (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) for the claimants.
  Digital and Nationwide did not appear and were not represented.
  Aubrey Craig (instructed by Brabners Chaffe Street LLP) for F and S.
  M appeared in person.
  Kelly Pennifer (instructed by McKays Solicitors) for ST.
  W appeared in person.
  SB did not appear and was not represented.
  Genevieve Parke (instructed by Sillett Webb Solicitors) for R.
  L appeared in person.
Judgment Dates: 1 October 2012

Catchwords

Intellectual property rights - Database rights - Infringement - Confidential information - Claimants (together Sky) being pay television satellite broadcaster and communications service provider - Sky alleging that two companies liable for breach of confidence, infringement of Sky's database rights, infringement of one of Sky's marks and passing off - Judge finding companies liable and granting summary judgment against companies - Whether individual defendants jointly and severally liable for infringements found against companies - Interpretation of directive - Meaning of 're-utilisation' - Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 96/9, art 7(2).

The Case

Intellectual property rights Database rights. The claimants, together Sky, formed a pay television satellite broadcaster and communications service provider. It had been granted summary judgment and a declaration that two companies were liable for breach of confidence, infringement of Sky's database rights, infringement of one of Sky's marks and passing off. The Chancery Division held, among other things, in favour of Sky that three individual defendants, who had control and management of the companies in question had intended, procured and shared a common design to commit the wrongful acts alleged against the two companies and were jointly liable for those acts.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.