After cut-price airline easyJet dumped Navitaire’s internet booking system for a software package supplied by Navitaire’s rival BulletProof Technologies, Navitaire claimed its copyright was infringed and sought to sue easyJet for infringement. A spokesman for easyJet described the claim as “complete nonsense motivated by commercial jealousy”. The Lawyer however reports that specialist IP judge Pumfrey J did not agree and that the application to have the claim struck out was rejected. London solicitors Herbert Smith act for easyJet, while Field Fisher Waterhouse represent Navitaire.
The IPKat observes that it is too early for Navitaire to uncork the Champagne, despite its victory. There is all the difference in the world between persuading the court that you do indeed have an arguable case (as happened here) and subsequently winning that argument.
Click here for bulletproof monks, music, comics and penguins
Bulletproof vests for Batman and for dogs
The IPKat observes that it is too early for Navitaire to uncork the Champagne, despite its victory. There is all the difference in the world between persuading the court that you do indeed have an arguable case (as happened here) and subsequently winning that argument.
Click here for bulletproof monks, music, comics and penguins
Bulletproof vests for Batman and for dogs
NAVITAIRE CLAIM CAN GO TO TRIAL, RULES JUDGE
![<strong>NAVITAIRE CLAIM CAN GO TO TRIAL, RULES JUDGE</strong>]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
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