“A software developer responsible for a copyright infringement described even by the copyright owner as insignificant still broke the law, a court has ruled. An injunction has been served even though the infringer has stopped using the technology.”
OUT-LAW.com, 31st August 2007
“Heathrow Airport Ltd applied for a wide-ranging injunction which, had they succeeded, could have banned five million people from the Piccadilly Line, large sections of the M4 and land surrounding Heathrow as well as the airport itself. It would have done so by making them subject to the provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.”
The Independent, 7th August 2007
“BAA suffered further embarrassment in its attempt to block a climate change demonstration at Heathrow, when a High Court judge admitted yesterday to being confused over exactly who the company wanted to ban from travelling to the airport.”
The Independent, 2nd August 2007
“Heathrow airport is targeting climate change activists with a sweeping injunction which could prevent members of the RSPB and the National Trust, plus millions more affiliated to environmental organisations, from attending a green protest.”
The Guardian, 27th July 2007
“Where parallel employment-related proceedings were taking place in New York and London it was open to the court, in an appropriate case and where the terms of s 5 of Council Regulation 44/2001 were satisfied, to grant an anti-suit injunction restraining the New York proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 12th July 2007
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Comparative advertisements must not be misleading
Court of Appeal
“No interim injunction would issue to inhibit comparative advertising, whereby one trader promoted his goods over those of a rival, unless the claimant could show the advertising was misleading and he would probably win a permanent injunction at trial.”
The Times, 27th June 2007
Please note the Times Law Reports are only availble free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“Where a trader sought to publish in comparative advertising the results of tests of a rival trader’s product, an important issue of freedom of expression was engaged, even though the comparative advertising would be aimed at diverting trade from one trader to another; and therefore the court would not grant an interim injunction to prevent such publication unless the court was satisfied that the applicant would succeed at trial in obtaining a final injunction.”
WLR Daily, 20th June 2007
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.