Golden Eye and 13 other claimants sought a Norwich Pharmacal order against Telefonica UK Ltd trading as O2, one of the six largest retail internet service providers in the UK. The object of the claim was to obtain disclosure of the names and addresses of customers of O2 who were alleged to have committed infringements of copyright through peer-to-peer file sharing.
Held:
Arnold J set out the respective rights of the claimants and those whose personal data would be disclosed if a Norwich Pharmacal order was made. He said: ‘The Claimants’ rights
The Claimants’ position can be summarised as follows. They are owners of copyrights which have been infringed on a substantial scale by individuals who have been engaged in . . file sharing. The only way in which they can ascertain the identity of those individuals and seek compensation for past infringements is by (i) obtaining disclosure of the names and addresses of the Intended Defendants, (ii) writing letters of claim to the Intended Defendants seeking voluntary settlements and (iii) where it is cost-effective to do so, bringing proceedings for infringement.
The Intended Defendants’ rights
The Intended Defendants are not, of course, before me. With the assistance of Consumer Focus’ submissions, however, it seems to me that the position of the Intended Defendants can be summarised as follows. It is likely that most of the Intended Defendants are ordinary consumers, many of whom may be on low incomes and without ready access to legal advice, particularly specialised legal advice of the kind required for a claim of this nature. The grant of the order sought will invade their privacy and impinge upon their data protection rights. Furthermore, it will expose them to receiving letters of claim and may expose them to proceedings for infringement in circumstances where they may not be guilty of infringement, where the subject matter of the claim may cause them embarrassment, where a proper defence to the claim would require specialised legal advice that they may not be able to afford and where they may not consider it cost-effective for them to defend the claim even if they are innocent.’
Judges:
Arnold J
Citations:
[2012] EWHC 723 (Ch), [2013] EMLR 1, [2012] RPC 28
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 2-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs sought discovery of the names of patent infringers from the defendant third party, submitting that by analogy with trade mark and passing-off cases, the Customs could be ordered to give discovery of the names.
Held: Buckley LJ . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Golden Eye (International) Ltd and Others v Telefonica UK Ltd and Another CA 21-Dec-2012
The claimant IP rights holder sought disclosure by the defendant broadband internet provider of the addresses of customers thought to have participated in file sharing, in breach of those rights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Information, Litigation Practice
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.452445