Yellow Van London Company v Driver

A defendant who admits repeated breaches of an injunction may be sanctioned for contempt even where some breaches have been rectified. The court must assess the seriousness and persistence of the breaches, the defendant’s attitude to the order, and the risk of further non-compliance. Imprisonment may be inappropriate for a first proved application, but a substantial fine and costs may be imposed. The court may warn that a further proved breach is likely to attract imprisonment.

The claimant applied to commit the defendant for contempt arising from breaches of an injunction made by Arnold J on 12 November 2013. The injunction restrained trade mark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement, and assisting others to commit those acts. It also required the destruction of infringing materials.

The claimant relied on evidence of the defendant’s continued use of various websites, trading names, advertising terms, logos and an application associated with the claimant’s marks and work. The defendant admitted that he had breached the order and stated that he had rectified some breaches. The issues were whether the order had been served, whether breaches were proved, and what sanction was appropriate.

1. Service and breach. The injunction and the committal application were properly served. The evidence established numerous breaches, including use of websites, trading names, advertising terms, logos and other promotional material associated with the claimant’s trade marks and work.
2. Admissions and incomplete rectification. The defendant admitted that he had breached the order, although he maintained that he had rectified breaches. The court found that the rectification was incomplete. The defendant had not conducted a sufficiently comprehensive search of his websites and other advertising and marketing channels to ensure compliance.
3. Approach to sanction. The defendant’s initially casual or dismissive attitude to the injunction, followed by incomplete efforts to comply, demonstrated contempt warranting punishment. Imprisonment was available but was not appropriate at this stage. A fine was the more suitable sanction, while the court warned that a further proved contempt would place the defendant at serious risk of imprisonment.
4. Order. The defendant was fined £10,000 for the breaches and ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of the application on the usual scale.

First-instance committal application determined by the High Court (Chancery Division). No appellate history was stated in the judgment.