(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 approach: ‘Conceptually the relief sought in this proceeding and the relief in terms of Anton Piller orders are similar. Each involves an intrusion on privacy but is an intrusion which has been justified on the basis of the court’s equitable jurisdiction can properly be extended to meet the realities of modern commercial situations. It is an ancient maxim of the law that wherer there is a right there is a remedy: Ubi jus ibi remedium. In circumstances were it is plain that persons are infringing proprietary interests which the law recognises, or deceiving the public by way of trade in a manner which may indirectly affect the commercial interests of others, the law should, if it reasonably can, provide a remedy.’
The second defendant was sued as ‘all persons who sell unlicensed . . merchandise at or about the . . stadium on 26th March 1993 who are served with this statement of claim. In circumstances where it is plain that persons are infringing proprietary interests which the law recognises, or deceiving the public by way of trade in a manner which may indirectly affect the commercial interests of others, the law should, if it reasonably can, provide a remedy. It was proposed that solicitors, officers of the court, should be authorised to accost bootleggers and require them to provide their current addresses, evidence of identity, and to surrender up to the named solicitors all merchandise including T-shirts, head-bands, badges or programmes in their possession or control. Persons required to respond to these oral interrogatories, which conceptually is what they are, will be such persons as are served with the orders for injunction also sought in this proceedings. The second and third defendants are identified as persons who sell unlicensed merchandise at the relevant concert venues. It is expedient to refer to them in this judgment as ‘John Doe’ and ‘Jane Doe’. The fact that persons cannot be identified at this stage of the proceeding is no bar to relief against persons who may be identified at a relevant time. It is not the name but the identity and identification of infringing persons which is relevant. The identify may not be immediately established but persons infringing will be identified by their act of infringement. Jane Doe and John Doe will be known by their works.’
Judges:
Anderson J
Citations:
[1994] FSR 497
Cited by:
Cited – Bloomsbury Publishing Plc and Another v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd ChD 7-May-2003
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property, Commonwealth
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183366