The claimant sought an order to restrict the defendant and other unknown defendants from publishing confidential details of the book it was about to publish from the Harry Potter series.
Held: Whilst: ‘I think it would be preferable for the issue of John Doe orders to be the subject of mature reflection, which is not possible in an application like this, which is done at great speed and without the benefit of submissions on both sides.
Nevertheless, for the reasons that I have indicated, I do not think it is outside the court’s power to grant injunctive relief against parties who are not identified by name, but who are known to exist and who will not be in any doubt that the order is directed at them.
Furthermore, if such an order is made, it seems to me it will be effective once brought to the attention, not only of the person (or persons) directly offering this stolen volume for sale, but all those, who knowing of the order, assist in attempts to sell it. ‘
Judges:
Laddie J
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 1087 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Acrow (Automation) Ltd v Rex Chainbelt Inc 1971
A person not party to proceedings, but who knows of an order made in them, and assists in its breach or nullifies the purpose of a trial may be liable for contempt. . .
Cited – Tony Blain Pty Ltd v Splain 1994
(High Court of New Zealand) Complaint was made the possible sales of products infringing the plaintiffs’ ‘Metallica’ property rights. The court was asked to make an order against unknown defendants.
Held: Anderson J discussed the correct . .
Cited – EMI Recurds v Kudhail CA 1985
An order was sought against the defendasnt and unnamed defendants involved in copyright piracy.
Held: The court was prepared to make an order against the named defendant on his own behalf and as representing all other persons engaged in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Intellectual Property
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.227067