Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Website Blocking Injunctions under United Kingdom and European Law

  • Chapter
Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 25))

Abstract

A growing number of European courts are granting injunctive relief which requires ISPs to disable access to websites and other internet resources by technical means. Although such blocking injunctions have been granted principally in cases involving copyright infringement, similar remedies have been recognised for other civil wrongs, including trade mark infringement. This chapter examines the current legal framework applicable to blocking injunctions, and evaluates the effectiveness and proportionality of this emerging remedy. First, it considers the provisions of the Information Society Directive and Enforcement Directive that govern injunctive relief against intermediaries. Second, it outlines the requirements to obtain a website blocking injunction in the United Kingdom pursuant to section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and considers recent case law. Third, it identifies factors relevant to assessing the proportionality of blocking injunctions, and identifies appropriate procedural and technical safeguards. Finally, this chapter discusses several emerging issues, including the availability of blocking injunctions against intermediaries other than ISPs, new targets of blocking injunctions, new types of wrongdoing, and the costs of compliance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market [2000] OJ L 178/1 art 14(1) (‘E-Commerce Directive’); Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (UK) regs 19(a)(i), 22 (‘E-Commerce Regulations’).

  2. 2.

    Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [2001] OJ L 167/10 art 8(3) (‘Information Society Directive’).

  3. 3.

    Ibid recital (59) (emphasis added). See also Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights [2004] OJ L 195/16 recital (23) (‘Enforcement Directive’).

  4. 4.

    See, e.g., Information Society Directive art 5(1)(a).

  5. 5.

    Case C-324/09, EU:C:2011:474, [127] (‘L’Oréal’).

  6. 6.

    Case C-557/07, LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH v Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH, EU:C:2009:107 [2009] ECR I-1227, [43]–[46].

  7. 7.

    Case C-314/12, EU:C:2014:192, [30] (‘UPC Telekabel’).

  8. 8.

    UPC Telekabel, [32].

  9. 9.

    UPC Telekabel, [36]. In the case of copyright, services may be used whether or not any person has actually accessed the protected subject-matter via that service provider. This appears to be on the basis that an infringement occurs the moment material is made available to the public, irrespective of whether it is actually accessed and downloaded by anyone in particular.

  10. 10.

    Enforcement Directive art 1, second sentence.

  11. 11.

    European Commission, ‘Statement Concerning art 2 of Directive 2004/48/EC’ (2005/295/EC) [2005] OJ L 94/37.

  12. 12.

    Enforcement Directive art 3(2).

  13. 13.

    Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, opened for signature 15 April 1994, 1867 UNTS 3 (entered into force 1 January 1995), annex 1C (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) art 41(1) (‘TRIPS Agreement’).

  14. 14.

    TRIPS Agreement art 41(2).

  15. 15.

    European Commission, Application of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, COM(2010) 779 final, 7.

  16. 16.

    Ibid.

  17. 17.

    [2010] OJ C 83/389 (‘Charter’).

  18. 18.

    See, e.g., TRIPS Agreement arts 46 (referring to ‘the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement and the remedies ordered’) and 47.

  19. 19.

    Case C-275/06 [2008] ECR I-271, [68] (citations omitted).

  20. 20.

    L’Oréal, [139].

  21. 21.

    Newzbin2 Order, [35] (Arnold J).

  22. 22.

    Newzbin2, [146] (Arnold J).

  23. 23.

    For more detailed discussion of the differences between the scope of substantive secondary liability for copyright infringement and injunctive relief, see Jaani Riordan, The Liability of Internet Intermediaries (2016) chs 6, 14.

  24. 24.

    Patent Office, Consultation Paper on Implementation of the Directive in the United Kingdom (7 August 2002) 16.

  25. 25.

    See Attorney–General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd. [No 2] [1990] 1 AC 109, 260 (Lord Keith), 281 (Lord Goff) (explaining that an equitable duty of confidence may arise upon the recipient of information being given notice of confidentiality). See also [1988] Ch 333, 375 (CA).

  26. 26.

    Patent Office, Consultation on UK Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society: Analysis of Responses and Government Conclusions (2002) [8.4].

  27. 27.

    1988 Act s 97A(3).

  28. 28.

    Note that the relevant infringements extend to database right by operation of regulation 23 of the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 (UK) (which extends certain remedies under the 1998 Act to database right).

  29. 29.

    1988 Act s 97A(2).

  30. 30.

    Ofcom, The Communications Market Report (6 August 2015) 292.

  31. 31.

    [2010] FSR 21 (‘Newzbin1’).

  32. 32.

    The defendant was the operator of a website on which large quantities of hyperlinks to copyright-infringing files were aggregated from Usenet news group servers and rendered searchable to users. The defendant was held to be liable for authorising copyright infringement and jointly liable with users who downloaded infringing copies using the facilities provided: Newzbin1, [102]–[112] (Kitchin J).

  33. 33.

    Newzbin1, [135] (Kitchin J).

  34. 34.

    [2011] EWHC 1981, [11], [204] (Arnold J) (‘Newzbin2’). The precise form of order was determined in [2011] EWHC 2714, [56] (Arnold J) (‘Newzbin2 Order’).

  35. 35.

    Newzbin2, [113] (Arnold J).

  36. 36.

    Newzbin2, [103] (Arnold J).

  37. 37.

    EU:C:2009:107 [2009] ECR I-1227 (‘Tele2’).

  38. 38.

    Newzbin2, [113] (Arnold J).

  39. 39.

    Newzbin2, [157] (Arnold J).

  40. 40.

    Newzbin2, [148] (Arnold J).

  41. 41.

    Newzbin2, [149] (Arnold J).

  42. 42.

    This reflects the approach taken in a line of authorities on secondary infringement: see Albert v Hoffnung & Co Ltd. (1921) 22 SR (NSW) 75, 81 (Harvey J); RCA Corporation v Custom Cleared Sales Pty Ltd. [1978] FSR 576.

  43. 43.

    Cf L’Oréal, [141].

  44. 44.

    Newzbin2 Order, [12] (Arnold J).

  45. 45.

    [2012] EWHC 268 (‘Dramatico’).

  46. 46.

    Two of the respondents (Telefónica UK Ltd. and British Sky Broadcasting Ltd) later merged, so all subsequent orders have been made against five respondents.

  47. 47.

    Dramatico Entertainment Ltd. v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd. [No 2] [2012] EWHC 1152 (Ch), [13] (Arnold J) (‘Dramatico [No 2]’).

  48. 48.

    EMI Records Ltd. v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd. [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch) (‘EMI’) .

  49. 49.

    EMI, [87], [102]–[107] (Arnold J).

  50. 50.

    The Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2013] EWHC 2058 (Ch) (‘FirstRow’).

  51. 51.

    FirstRow, [42] (Arnold J).

  52. 52.

    FirstRow, [55(ii)], [55(iii)] (Arnold J). See also Rugby Football Union v Viagogo Ltd [2012] 1 WLR 3333, [45] (Lord Kerr JSC) (‘Viagogo’).

  53. 53.

    FirstRow, [57]–[59] (Arnold J).

  54. 54.

    Paramount Home Entertainment International Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2013] EWHC 3479 (Ch) (‘Paramount [No 5]’).

  55. 55.

    Paramount [No 5], [2] (Arnold J).

  56. 56.

    [2014] EWHC 3444 (Ch), [3] (Arnold J) (‘1967’).

  57. 57.

    1967, [7] (Arnold J).

  58. 58.

    [2015] EWHC 1082 (Ch) (‘Popcorn Time’).

  59. 59.

    Popcorn Time, [55]–[56] (Birss J).

  60. 60.

    Popcorn Time, [59] (Birss J).

  61. 61.

    Popcorn Time, [61]–[62] (Birss J).

  62. 62.

    L’Oréal SA v eBay International AG [2009] EWHC 1094 (Ch); [2009] RPC 21, [447] (Arnold J).

  63. 63.

    [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch) (‘Cartier’).

  64. 64.

    See Cartier, [101], [110]–[111] (Arnold J).

  65. 65.

    Interestingly, this suggests that the power is not limited to internet infringement and may also apply in the case of ‘offline’ intermediaries, such as auctioneers, warehousemen, and carriers.

  66. 66.

    See Cartier, [141] (Arnold J).

  67. 67.

    Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs & Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133, 145–6 (Buckley LJ).

  68. 68.

    Cartier, [106] (Arnold J).

  69. 69.

    See, by analogy, Your Response Ltd v Datateam Business Media Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 281, [23] (Moore-Bick LJ) (Davis and Floyd LJJ agreeing).

  70. 70.

    See The Siskina [1979] AC 210; South Carolina Insurance Co Ltd v Assurantie Maatschappij De Zeven Provincien NV [1987] AC 24; Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [1993] AC 334; Mercedes-Benz AG v Leiduck [1996] AC 284; Fourie v Le Roux [2007] 1 WLR 320.

  71. 71.

    Cf 158 BGHZ 236 — Internet-Versteigerung; 2004 NJW 3102; 2004 GRUR 693, 695 — Schöner Wetten (suggesting that intermediaries’ duties are limited what it is reasonable to inspect and control). See Gerald Spindler and Matthias Leistner, ‘Secondary Copyright Infringement — New Perspectives in Germany and Europe’ [2006] International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 788, 797, 801.

  72. 72.

    An ‘Alexa’ ranking was used by the Court as a proxy measure of each website’s popularity. Rankings are calculated by sampling the browsing activity of users who have installed the Alexa toolbar. The methodology is necessarily imprecise.

  73. 73.

    Cartier, [247] (Arnold J).

  74. 74.

    Cartier, [201] (Arnold J).

  75. 75.

    Cartier, [106] (Arnold J).

  76. 76.

    UPC Telekabel, [53].

  77. 77.

    UPC Telekabel, [53].

  78. 78.

    UPC Telekabel, [59].

  79. 79.

    [2014] BCSC 1063.

  80. 80.

    Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc [2015] BCCA 265, [75] (Groberman J) (‘Equustek’).

  81. 81.

    Equustek, [80] (Groberman J).

  82. 82.

    Equustek, [105] (Groberman J).

  83. 83.

    Equustek, [56] (Groberman J).

  84. 84.

    Sony Music Entertainment (Irl) Ltd v UPC Communications Irl Ltd [No 2] [2015] IEHC 386, [22] (Cregan J).

  85. 85.

    Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015, Explanatory Memorandum, [41].

  86. 86.

    See British Sky Broadcasting Ltd v Cartier International AG [2016] EWCA Civ 658. The decision is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to the issue of compliance costs.

  87. 87.

    Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data [1995] OJ L 281/31 (‘Data Protection Directive’).

  88. 88.

    Data Protection Directive art 12(b).

  89. 89.

    Google Spain SL v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos [2014] 3 WLR 659.

  90. 90.

    See Hegglin v Persons Unknown & Google Inc [2014] EWHC 3793 (QB) in relation to search engines.

  91. 91.

    [2015] EWHC 59 (QB) (‘Mosley’).

  92. 92.

    Mosley, [45]–[48] (Mitting J).

  93. 93.

    Mosley, [55] (Mitting J). See E-Commerce Directive recital (45).

  94. 94.

    Data Protection Directive art 14(1)(a).

  95. 95.

    Google Spain, [74].

  96. 96.

    1998 Act s 10(2), sch 2, paras 1–4.

  97. 97.

    1998 Act s 10(4).

  98. 98.

    The general prohibition on interception is subject to numerous exceptions, including acts by the providers of telecommunications services undertaken for purposes relating to the ‘provision or operation of the service’ or to the enforcement of any enactment relating to the content of transmitted communications: see Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (UK) s 45.

  99. 99.

    See, e.g., Tom Espiner, ‘IWF Chief: Why Wikipedia Block Went Wrong’ (20 February 2009) http://www.zdnet.com/iwf-chief-why-wikipedia-block-went-wrong-3039616171/.

  100. 100.

    See, e.g., Press release, ‘PM Announces New global Action to Deal with Online Child Abuse’ (Prime Minister’s Office, 11 December 2014).

  101. 101.

    Mobile Broadband Group, ‘UK Code of Practice for the Self-Regulation of Content on Mobiles: Version 3’ (1 July 2013) http://mobilebroadbandgroup.com/documents/UKCodeofpractice_mobile_010713.pdf.

  102. 102.

    Broadband Stakeholder Group, Open Internet Code of Practice: Voluntary Code of Practice Supporting Access to Legal Services and Safeguarding against Negative Discrimination on the Open Internet (May 2013) http://www.broadbanduk.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/BSG-Open-Internet-Code-of-Practice-amended-May-2013.pdf.

  103. 103.

    Enforcement Directive arts 3(2), 11(2); Information Society Directive art 8(1); Charter art 52. See also L’Oréal, [139]; Scarlet, [36].

  104. 104.

    See Re S (a child) [2005] 1 AC 593; Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457.

  105. 105.

    Golden Eye (International) Ltd v Telefónica UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 723 (Ch); [2012] RPC 28, [117] (Arnold J) (citations omitted); approved in Viagogo, [45] (Lord Kerr JSC).

  106. 106.

    Cartier, [189]–[191] (Arnold J).

  107. 107.

    EMI, [100] (Arnold J).

  108. 108.

    See, e.g., Ziggo BV v Stichting Bescherming Rechten Entertainment Industrie Nederland (BREIN) (Court of Appeal of The Hague, decision of 28 January 2014) (presently under appeal and the subject of a pending reference to the CJEU); Case No I ZR 3/14, Keine Störerhaftung für Access-Provider—3dl.am (decision of 26 November 2015, German Federal Supreme Court); Case No I ZR 174/14, Goldesel.to (decision of 26 November 2015, German Federal Supreme Court).

  109. 109.

    Newzbin2, [199] (Arnold J).

  110. 110.

    In Cartier itself, the most popular target website had a local ranking of 5,575,490 (compared to TPB, which was ranked 43rd in the UK at the time of blocking: Dramatico [No 1], [26]). See further nn 73–74.

  111. 111.

    Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] QB 946, [48] (‘Jameel’). See also Defamation Act 2013 (UK) s 9.

  112. 112.

    See, eg, Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Ltd v Hargreaves [2007] EWHC 2375 (QB), [17] (HHJ Parkes QC).

  113. 113.

    Sullivan v Bristol Film Studios Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 570, [32]–[37] (Lewison LJ) (Etherton and Ward LJJ agreeing).

  114. 114.

    Promusicae, [118].

  115. 115.

    Jameel, [54], [69]–[70] (Lord Phillips MR).

  116. 116.

    FirstRow, [55(i)] (Arnold J).

  117. 117.

    Cf Broder Kleinschmidt, ‘An International Comparison of ISP’s [sic] Liabilities for Unlawful Third Party Content’ (2010) 18 International Journal of Law and Information Technology 332, 353–4.

  118. 118.

    Consumer Focus, Response to ‘Proposal for Code of Practice Addressing Websites that are Substantially Focused on Infringement’ (19 September 2011) 1.

  119. 119.

    Alexa Internet Inc, ‘Statistics Summary for Newzbin.com’ (26 March 2012) http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/newzbin.com#.

  120. 120.

    See, eg, Alexa Internet Inc, ‘Statistics Summary for Demonoid.me’ (26 March 2012) http://alexa.com/siteinfo/demonoid.me; ‘Statistics Summary for Torrentreactor.net’ (26 March 2012) http://alexa.com/siteinfo/torrentreactor.net (showing growth in line with previous trends).

  121. 121.

    FirstRow, [55(v)] (Arnold J).

  122. 122.

    Newzbin2, [196] (Arnold J).

  123. 123.

    [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin), [232] (Kenneth Parker J) (‘BT’).

  124. 124.

    Ofcom, ‘“Site Blocking” to reduce Online Copyright Infringement’ (27 May 2010) 51.

  125. 125.

    Cartier, [258].

  126. 126.

    Richard Clayton, ‘Failures in a Hybrid Content Blocking System’ in George Denezis and David Martin (eds), Privacy Enhancing Technologies (2005) 78, 90.

  127. 127.

    See FirstRow, [55(ii)] (Arnold J).

  128. 128.

    Cf European Commission, Public Hearing on Directive 2004/48/EC and the Challenges Posed by the Digital Environment (Brussels, 7 June 2011) 1.

  129. 129.

    Cartier, [198]–[217] (Arnold J).

  130. 130.

    Case C-70/10, Scarlet, Advocate General’s Opinion, [86].

  131. 131.

    See Open Rights Group, ‘451 Unavailable: Site Blocked for Legal Reasons’ (2015) http://www.451unavailable.org/.

  132. 132.

    Cartier, [262]–[265] (Arnold J).

  133. 133.

    Promusicae, [68]; L’Oréal, [143]; UPC Telekabel, [63]. See also Charter art 52(1).

  134. 134.

    Scarlet, [46]–[49]. See Charter arts 11(1), 16, 17(2).

  135. 135.

    Newzbin2, [200] (Arnold J).

  136. 136.

    Cartier, [195] (Arnold J) (emphasis added).

  137. 137.

    UPC Telekabel, [48]–[56].

  138. 138.

    Newzbin2 Order, [32] (Arnold J). See also EMI, [102] (Arnold J); FirstRow, [55(i)] (Arnold J).

  139. 139.

    Cartier, [242] (Arnold J).

  140. 140.

    Newzbin2 Order, [32] (Arnold J) (emphasis added).

  141. 141.

    Cf Totalise plc v Motley Fool Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1233 (awarding the innocent party its costs of providing disclosure of a wrongdoer’s identity and its legal costs to have the question determined).

  142. 142.

    Substantial improvements to blocking technology may be required before interim blocking will become viable; currently, ISPs have up to 10 business days to implement court orders, and network engineers may be unable to implement a blocking order at short notice.

  143. 143.

    Jirehouse Capital v Google Inc [2014] (Unreported, High Court of Justice, Birss J, 6 February 2014, Claim No HP14 E00462).

  144. 144.

    See also Ofcom, n 124, 48.

  145. 145.

    See, eg, European Commission, above n 128, 1.

  146. 146.

    Regulation 2015/2120 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union [2015] OJ L 310/1 (‘Network Neutrality Regulation’).

  147. 147.

    Network Neutrality Regulation art 3(1).

  148. 148.

    Network Neutrality Regulation art 3(3)(i).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Barrister, 8 New Square, Lincoln’s Inn, London, UK

    Jaani Riordan

Authors
  1. Jaani Riordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaani Riordan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Graeme B. Dinwoodie

  2. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, Oxford, Illinois, USA

    Graeme B. Dinwoodie

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Riordan, J. (2017). Website Blocking Injunctions under United Kingdom and European Law. In: Dinwoodie, G.B. (eds) Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers. Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation