The claimants had begun copyright infringement proceedings claiming that they represented the rights holders in pornographic films said to have been file shared by the defendants. Faced with insuperable difficulties, they purported to withdraw the cases intending to re-issue.
Held: Such a procedure required the permission of the court. It would amount to an abuse of process and was not to be supported.
Judges:
Birss QC J
Citations:
[2011] EWPCC 6
Links:
Citing:
See Also – Media Cat Ltd v Billington PCC 17-Dec-2010
. .
Cited by:
Principal judgment – Media Cat Ltd v Adams and Others PCC 18-Apr-2011
The claimants had begun copyright infringement cases. Having been refused a request to be allowed to withdraw the cases as an abuse, their solicitors now faced an application for a wasted costs order.
Held: The court only has jurisdiction to . .
Cited – Golden Eye (International) Ltd v Maricar PCC 23-Sep-2011
In each of two cases, the claimant sued in copyright alleging that the defendant had made available copies of a film, to which it held the rights, for download from the internet.
Held: In view of the similarities in the case with the Media Cat . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428482
