As part of our declared aim to keep readers aware of the latest cases, we publish brief case summaries of IT cases reported on Lawtel over the past few months. The full report of Britannia Building Society v Prangley (2000) LTL 12/6/2000, covering domain name disputes, is also included. All of the full reports include hypertext links to relevant cases and legislation referred to in the judgment are available online. The full text of the judgments are also available to order through Lawtel’s Transcripts Express service.
The court could not accept the evidence that the defendant acquired the domain name of a well-known building society without having regard to the fact that the name represented that society and was a commercially viable instrument.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY – CIVIL PROCEDURE – FRAUD
Court : Ch.D (Rattee J) 12/6/2000
LTL 12/6/2000 EXTEMPORE (Unreported elsewhere)
Document No.: Case Law – C9000455
R v Graham Lester Ian Waddon (2000)
When an image had been transmitted across the Internet, the act of publication took place when the data was transmitted by the defendant or his agent to the service provider, and the publication or transmission was, in effect, still taking place when the data was received.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY – MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT
Court : CA (Rose LJ V-P, Sullivan J, Silber J) 6/4/2000
LTL 6/4/2000 EXTEMPORE (Unreported elsewhere)
Document No.: Case Law – C7800504
Antony Rowan Atkins v Director of Public ProsecUtions : Peter Goodland v Director of Public Prosecutions (2000)
‘Possession’ under s.160 Criminal Justice Act 1988 required knowledge in accordance with general principles of law. Whether academic research constituted a ‘legitimate reason’ defence was purely an issue of fact. ‘Making’ photographs included copying, provided it was done with knowledge. Photographic montages were not included in s.7(7) Protection of Children Act 1978.
CRIME – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY – CHILDREN
Court : DC (Simon Brown LJ, Blofeld J) 8/3/2000
LTL 8/3/2000 : TLR 15/3/2000 : ILR 17/4/2000 : (2000) 2 AER 425
Judgment : Approved subject to editorial corrections – 24 pages
Document No.: Case Law – C8800405
ANGLO GROUP PLC v (1) WINTHER BROWN & CO LTD (2) BML (OFFICE COMPUTERS) LTD : WINTHER BROWN & CO LTD v (1) ANGLO GROUP PLC (2) BML (OFFICE COMPUTERS) LTD (2000)
The commercial purchaser of a standard, as opposed to a bespoke, computer software package was under an implied duty to cooperate with the supplier of the software in order to achieve as good a ‘fit’ as was reasonably possible, and had, if necessary, to modify its systems and/or expectations to that end. Experts who adopted an avowedly confrontational approach failed in their duties and responsibilities to the court.
CONTRACT – COMMERCIAL – SALE OF GOODS – AGENCY – FINANCIAL – MISREPRESENTATION -DAMAGES – EVIDENCE – CIVIL PROCEDURE -INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Court : Technology & Construction Court (HH Judge Toulmin CMG QC) 1/3/2000
LTL 21/3/2000 (Unreported elsewhere)
Judgment : Approved – 68 pages
Document No.: Case Law – C7200866
VICTOR CHANDLER INTERNATIONAL LTD v (1) CUSTOMS & EXCISE COMMISSIONERS (2) TELETEXT LTD (2000)
A bookmaker whose business was located abroad was not entitled to solicit custom within the United Kingdom by broadcasting advertisements on Teletext. Such an advertisement was an ‘advertisement or other document’ for the purposes of s.9(1)(b) Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981. [An application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords is pending.]
BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY – MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT
Court : CA (Sir Richard Scott V-C, Chadwick LJ, Buxton LJ) 29/2/2000
LTL 29/2/2000 : TLR 8/3/2000 : (2000) 2 AER 315
Judgment : Approved subject to editorial corrections – 22 pages
Document No.: Case Law – C7200110
Full Report: Britannia Building Society v Prangley (2000)
Ch.D (Rattee J) 12/6/2000
[keywords omitted]
The court could not accept the evidence that the defendant acquired the domain name of a well-known building society without having regard to the fact that the name represented that society and was a commercially viable instrument.
Application by the claimant (‘BBS’) for summary judgment seeking to show that the first defendant had no real defence to a claim of passing off. BBS was a substantial and well-known building society carrying on business worldwide and substantially within the United Kingdom. BBS was the owner of various Internet domain names and addresses for the purpose of providing services on the Internet. It was also the owner of various trade marks including, in particular, ‘Britannia Building Society’. The first defendant (‘P’) was the registered owner of the internet website domain name ‘britanniabuildingsociety.com’. P contended that he was in the process of establishing a business whereby he provided British building workers to employers in Iran. He sought to show that he intended to advertise his services on the Internet via the domain name which he acquired via an agency (the second defendant). Although P had not actually set up the website at the address of the domain name, BBS issued proceedings alleging passing off. The application by BBS for summary judgment was made on the basis that, under the principles outlined in British Telecommunications Plc & Ors v One In A Million Ltd & Ors [1999] 1 WLR 903, P had no defence to the passing-off claim.
HELD: (1) P’s evidence was to the effect that his intention was not to use the domain name in a fraudulent way or to prejudice the goodwill of BBS. The court did not have the benefit of hearing full evidence as this was merely an application for summary judgment. (2) The evidence that P sought to rely upon was incredible. There was no doubt that P registered the domain name whilst having regard to the fact that it represented BBS and was a commercially viable instrument. (3) It was plain that any use of the domain name in this country would lead to a serious risk of confusion that the registered owner of it was connected to BBS. (4) It was also plain that the domain name was to be used for fraudulent gains. (5) It therefore followed from One in a Million that it was appropriate for the court to intervene and grant injunctive relief. (6) P had no real prospect of defending the claim successfully and the application for summary judgment was therefore successful. The action against the second defendant had been compromised. The action against the third defendant was not pursued.
Summary judgment for the claimant.
