Since 2004, A had been operating the blinkx.com web site, which was an Internet service providing access to film, television and video content. In 2008, B started up its own site at blinkbox.com, which enabled users to choose, customise and share video and television content. When A discovered that B was attempting to register trade marks, it complained to B and said it was infringing A’s trade marks and passing off. A applied for an injunction to stop B.
The High Court refused to grant A’s injunction application. A had been aware since 2008 of B’s potentially conflicting similar service but had done nothing to stop it for a while. It was totally unjustified and unreasonable to delay in issuing legal proceedings. The Court dismissed A’s argument that it was appropriate to wait to issue proceedings until the extent of the confusion became clear. The Court said an injunction would severely affect B’s business as it would have to immediately change its name and lose advertising revenue, which may prove unnecessary if B won at the main court action. If A had acted more quickly, the Court may have granted the application but the delay was fatal to its request for an injunction.
Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of www.Upload-IT.com, comments: ‘People often delay in taking legal action because they don’t want to incur the expense. However, as this case shows, if you delay in exercising your rights, you may lose out on stopping someone. It’s always best to speak to a lawyer at the earliest opportunity so you can at least weigh up the options and don’t lose your rights for failure to act.’