Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Arnold
Judgment Date26 November 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] EWHC 3915 (Ch)
CourtChancery Division
Docket NumberCase No: HC14001056
Date26 November 2014

[2014] EWHC 3915 (Ch)



Royal Courts of Justice

Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL


The Hon Mr Justice Arnold

Case No: HC14001056

Cartier International AG
(1) British Sky Broadcasting Limited
(2) British Telecommunications Plc
(3) EE Limited
(4) Talktalk Telecom Limited
(5) Virgin Media Limited

Adrian Speck QC and Benet Brandreth (instructed by Wiggin LLP) for the Claimant

Reed Smith LLP for the Defendants

Mr Justice Arnold

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").


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.


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.


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,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT