Planet Ace Ltd v Hendon Mob and others was decided yesterday and noted on the LexisNexis All England Direct subcription-only service. Planet ran a website, supported by a database, which provided detailed statistical and other information on aspects of the game of poker which was continuously updated. The Hendon Mob, admitting it took information from Planet's website for the purpose of constructing its own website, gave undertakings to stop infringing the copyright in Planet's database. Planet then applied for an interim order that the Hendon Mob take down the database from their website, arguing that the copying of information from its database had been so extensive that the Mob's database was so inherently infected by that material that it was incapable of effective separation; this being so,the Mob would inevitably profit from Planet's investment in constructing its database. The Court had two consider two issues: (i) had the Mob fully expunged Planet's material from their database and (ii) what relief was Planet likely to obtain at trial?
Mr Justice Evans-Lombe dismissed Planet's application: although Planet had shown there was a serious case to be tried, the balance of convenience pointed away from making the injunction sought. If Planet succeeded at trial, the most feasible and likely outcome would be an award of damages. If injunctive relief the were ordered, it would most likely be a "springboard injunction", to stop the Mob gaining an advantage over other businesses in the same area, since Planet did not have a monopoly in the information it provided, it being available from other sources.
Never play poker with a cat: their faces never give away their thoughts ...
The IPKat sees this as another of those "help yourself and just pay a reasonable royalty" type cases that can make deliberate infringement seem quite an attractive business option for people who don't generate their own information and materials.
How to play poker here
Keeping a poker face here and here
INFRINGERS CALL PLANET ACE'S BLUFF
![INFRINGERS CALL PLANET ACE'S BLUFF]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Friday, February 04, 2005
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[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