Oh dear oh dear oh dear...

Failure to act quickly enough proved fatal to injunction application to stop trade mark infringement and passing off – Blinkx v Blinkbox, High Court

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.

http://www.mablaw.com/2010/02/failure-to-act-quickly-enough-proved-fatal-to-injunction-application-to-stop-trade-mark-infringement-and-passing-off-–-blinkx-v-blinkbox-high-court/

-------

Comment: Slow off the mark? Blinkx? Surely not? The company that still hasn't released an iPhone app or a Facebook widget, slow off the mark?

What a bunch of totally useless, clueless muppets run this company. Jesus, trained monkeys could do better - and would be a damned sight cheaper!