The claimants complained at the defendant having registered a company under the name ‘Suhner’. The defendants gave no justification for using the word ‘Suhner’ as part of their name. They claimed that they had the right to form a company in order to try to stop the plaintiffs trading in this country under their own name.
Held: They were not, and an injunction was granted. Unless the confidential information sought to be protected by an action is properly identified, an injunction in the resulting unclear terms will have uncertain scope and be difficult to enforce: identification of what the information at issue was and whether it was confidential would have to be determined on a contempt motion. As to what information was confidential: ‘A great deal of the defendants’ evidence seems to me to be really beside the point, first of all, because the confidential nature of the document is not dependent on whether the information which it contains is available elsewhere; but, on the question of whether it contains useful information which has been compiled by the plaintiffs for a particular purpose and, if it does contain such information and if it has been compiled and handed over to the defendants for a particular purpose, then, as I understand the law, that document is confidential and the defendants are not entitled to use it for another purpose’.
Judges:
Plowman J
Citations:
[1967] RPC 329
Citing:
Applied – Saltman Engineering Co v Campbell Engineering Co Ltd CA 1948
The plaintiffs instructed the defendant to make tools for the manufacture of leather punches in accordance with drawings which the plaintiffs provided to the defendant for this purpose. The defendant used the drawings to make tools, and the tools to . .
Cited by:
Cited – Marketmaker Beijing Co Ltd and others v CMC Group Plc and others QBD 8-Oct-2004
Interim injunctions had been obtained to prevent the defendants carrying out certain banking transactions.
Held: The remedy sought and the claim was extravagant and unlikely to succeed. The injunctions should be discharged. It was not at all . .
Cited – EPI Environmental Technologies Inc and Another v Symphony Plastic Technologies Plc and Another ChD 21-Dec-2004
The claimant had developed an additive which would assist in making plastic bags bio-degradable. They alleged that, in breach of confidentiality agreements, the defendants had copied the product. The defendants said the confidentiality agreement was . .
Cited – British Telecommunications Plc; Virgin Enterprises Ltd; J Sainsbury Plc; Marks and Spencer Plc and Ladbroke Group Plc v One In a Million Ltd and others CA 23-Jul-1998
Registration of a distinctive Internet domain name using registered trade marks and company names could be an infringement of a registered Trade Mark, and also passing off. It was proper to grant quia timet injunctions where necessary to stop . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.216389