The defendant company employed salesmen who sought to persuade the claimant’s customers to move to them. Sales staff misled customers as to the relationship between the parties. The defendant gave an unqualified undertaking to the claimant not to repeat such actions. They were repeated, and BT sued. The defendants resisted giving an undertaking without some qualification which would recognise that they could not have full control over their staff. The court held that it was for management to implement appropriate systems to control such behaviour, and the order sought created no new obligation beyond that already given by the unqualified undertaking.
 EWHC 131 (Ch),  FSR 679
England and Wales
Cited – Microsoft Corporation v Plato Technology Limited CA 15-Jul-1999
There is no rule requiring a court always to give fullest relief to parties in intellectual property cases. Where infringement of copyright by the sale of counterfeit software was found to be inadvertent or unintended, the judge could properly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contempt of Court
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.135783