- 51
A
B
C
D
prevailing unlawful state of affairs; otherwise any further damage to
national security would likely to be irreparable.
96.
Third, an injunction is necessary to persuade the IPOs to
remove the problematic videos in connection with the Song on their
platforms.
E
-
internet blocking orders.
C
D
E
F
97.
H
B
In this connection, a useful analogy may be drawn from
F
G
A
As observed in Wolverhampton, at [49], an internet blocking
order is a new type of injunction granted in the absence of a cause of action
against the defendant, developed to address the problems arising from the
G
H
infringement of intellectual property rights via the internet. It is granted
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
to compel the internet service providers, who are themselves innocent of
any wrongdoing, to prevent their facilities from being used to commit or
facilitate a wrong. The UK Supreme Court observed:
“161. But internet blocking orders (para 49 above) stand in a
different category. The applicant intellectual property owner
does not seek assistance from internet service providers (‘ISPs’)
to enable it to identify and then sue the wrongdoers. It seeks an
injunction against the ISP because it is a much more efficient
way of protecting its intellectual property rights than suing the
numerous wrongdoers, even though it is no part of its case
against the ISP that it is, or has even threatened to be, itself a
wrongdoer. The injunction is based upon the application of
‘ordinary principles of equity’: see Cartier (para 20 above) per
Lord Sumption at para 15. Specifically, the principle is that, once
notified of the selling of infringing goods through its network,
the ISP comes under a duty, but only if so requested by the court,
to prevent the use of its facilities to facilitate a wrong by the
sellers. The proceedings against the ISP may be the only
proceedings which the intellectual property owner intends to
take. Proceedings directly against the wrongdoers are usually
impracticable, because of difficulty in identifying the operators
of the infringing websites, their number and their location,
typically in places outside the jurisdiction of the court: see per
Arnold J at first instance in Cartier [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch);
[2015] Bus LR 298; [2015] RPC 7 at para 198.
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
U
V
V