England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
		26 November 2014

MR JUSTICE ARNOLD :

1. On 17 October 2014 I handed down judgment in Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch), in which I decided that, for the reasons given in that judgment, I would make orders substantially in the form sought by Richemont on the application which was before the Court ("the Main Application").
2. During the course of preparing evidence on the Main Application, Richemont found that a search for the term "buy cartier fakes" on Google identified two sites out of the first 100 results returned that were responsible between them for 41% of the results, namely pillarrecruitment.com and pasmoldsolutions.com ("the New Websites"). At the time the Main Application was commenced, the New Websites appeared to be legitimate websites. Subsequently, however, it became apparent that they were now operating as counterfeiting websites. Accordingly, Richemont sought to gather evidence about their activities, including making trap purchases from each of the New Websites.
3. Although the trap purchases were made on 23 September 2014, before the hearing of the Main Application, the goods were not received in the UK until 4 October 2014 (pasmoldsolutions.com) and 20 October 2014 (pillarrecruitment.com). They were not analysed by Richemont to confirm that they were counterfeits until 21 October 2014 (pasmoldsolutions.com) and 31 October 2014 (pillarrecruitment.com). It was not, therefore, possible for Richemont to seek to have the New Websites considered as part of the Main Application.
4. On 11 November 2014 I heard further argument as to the precise form of the order to be made on the Main Application, and consequential matters. Shortly before that hearing, Richemont launched a further application ("the Supplementary Application") to block the New Websites. Since the ISPs were not ready to deal with the Supplementary Application on that occasion, I adjourned it until a later date. Since then, the ISPs have indicated in correspondence that they do not oppose the Court, if it thinks fit, making an order on the Supplementary Application in the same terms mutatis mutandis as the order made on the Main Application.
5. Having considered the evidence filed by Richemont in support of the Supplementary Application and the subsequent inter-solicitor correspondence, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order in respect of the New Websites. My reasons are the same as I gave in respect of the Target Websites the subject of the Main Application. Had the New Websites been included in the Main Application, I would have made an order in respect of them on that application.