Back in 1996 Bargain Pages (BP) sued Midland Independent Newspapers (MIN) for passing off. The case was settled on terms which included a court order restricting the names and get-ups under which MIN could publish its own papers and ordering MIN to impose that order on its parent and subsidiary companies. Six years later, following intense corporate reorganisation on each side, BP had become a subsidiary of Bargain Pages Media (BPM) and MIN had become part of Trinity Mirror, Britain’s largest newspaper group.

In January 2003 BP launched a new paper, The Bargain Pages, whereupon one of MIN’s former subsidiaries MNL, itself part of the Trinity Mirror group, brought out a rival publication, Bargain Hunter. BP had already commenced passing off proceedings before BP’s lawyers found the papers relating to the 1996 trial and order. Among the questions before the court was whether, in a claim relating to breach of the 1996 order, BP could amend its claim by joining BPM as a second claimant and Trinity Mirror and MNL as further defendants. The Vice Chancellor Sir Andrew Morritt ruled that BP could join BPM as a claimant but that Trinity Mirror and MNL could not be joined as defendants since, to put it simply, they were not around at the time of the 1996 litigation. But he confirmed that BP could sue MIN for failing to procure the adherence of Trinity Mirror and MNL to the 1996 order.

Strike a hard bargain here or here

OLD INJUNCTION, NEW TWIST <strong>OLD INJUNCTION, NEW TWIST</strong> Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, August 04, 2003 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.