Irish paper folds, but it's no O'Rigami ...

In "'Mail' sued over 'Tribune' cover" the Irish Times reports that the Irish Mail on Sunday is being sued for passing off over its alleged “brazen and outrageous” publication last month of a fake copy of the Sunday Tribune, only days after the latter went into receivership.  Lawyers for the receiver say the newspaper is to seek damages, including “exemplary damages” over this “direct attack” on the goodwill of the Sunday Tribune.

The Irish Mail on Sunday however described the Sunday Tribune as “a dead man walking, if it was even walking” at the time of the disputed publication in early February, claiming that the goodwill of the Sunday Tribune was not even worth the €40,000 cost of the libel insurance which would have been necessary to publish it.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly has said that he would transfer the proceedings to the Commercial Court since the action was admissible within the rules relating to passing off cases, there no longer being a monetary threshold for passing off actions.  The trial has been listed for 21 March.

The IPKat, aided by legions of amicable Irish IP enthusiasts, of which Gemma O'Farrell is not the least to be reckoned with, suspects that he will have more to report to readers of this weblog in due course.

Origami here
Irish origami, or what to do with your newspaper when it folds, here
Irish paper folds, but it's no O'Rigami ... Irish paper folds, but it's no O'Rigami ... Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, March 09, 2011 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:

Powered by Blogger.