Publications

European IP Bulletin, Issue 34, September 2006 - Copyrights

COPYRIGHTS

1. Five Year Interim Injunction in Copyright Case Continues

In Clarke v Artprints UK [2006] All ER (D) 325, Artprints UK was a company involved in the reproduction and distribution of artworks in various formats, while the second defendant was the majority shareholder of the company. Artprints UK had been reproducing several works of the artist Francis Bacon and claimed that it had acquired a licence from the owner of the copyright of these works. However, the claimants argued that the licence was invalid and that they were the owners of the copyright of the works.

The Claimants applied for an interim injunction against Artprints UK to prohibit the reproduction and distribution of the Francis Bacon works pending final determination of the trial. The interim injunction was granted on 31 July 2001 and further directions were given in respect of the conduct of the proceedings including particular disclosure timetables.

During the next five years there was very little development. The initial trial date was vacated and disclosure was delayed for various reasons, including the death of one of the claimants. The defendants’ solicitors eventually applied to have the 2001 injunction discharged. They argued that the claimants had caused inexcusable and unexplainable delay to the proceedings, and that it was the responsibility of the party benefiting from injunction to enable expeditious progress of the case. Therefore, as the claimants had failed to do so, the injunction should be lifted. The claimants responded that the delays had been predominantly caused by the defendants, specifically, the second defendant had refused to comply with the disclosure order making it impossible for the claimants to pursue the action further.

The Court dismissed the application, finding no fault with the claimants in respect of the delays. The defendants had consented to the delays.  However, it was noted that this case should have been brought to final hearing much earlier and that the claimants were clearly benefiting from this overlong interim injunction, and rather than challenging the injunction, the defendants should have been complying with disclosure order.

 

Click here to return to the Summary page, or on any of the headings below to see the full case notes for that topic:

PATENTS |TRADE MARKS | DESIGNS | CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND PRIVACY