Leighton Vans Limited v David William Harris & Anor.

An interim injunction should identify the specific acts prohibited. The court should not ordinarily enjoin a defendant merely from acting unlawfully or from infringing intellectual property rights in general terms. Nor should an order give the claimant an effective veto over the defendant’s conduct.

Where the evidence identifies particular alleged infringements, the court may grant targeted interim relief under American Cyanamid principles. Relief may be limited in duration where fuller evidence could produce a different conclusion. A Norwich Pharmacal disclosure order requires necessity, not merely desirability, and remains discretionary even when the threshold is met.

The claimant manufactured and sold designed bumpers for VW Transporter vans and alleged that the defendants had produced or supplied bumpers made to the claimant’s designs. The application concerned the wording and scope of interim injunctive relief and disclosure of information about manufacturers and suppliers.

The defendants offered limited undertakings. The claimant sought wider relief covering articles made to the designs or to substantially similar designs, together with disclosure identifying persons involved in producing the allegedly infringing goods. The central issues were whether targeted interim injunctions should be granted and whether disclosure was necessary.

1. Scope of injunction. An injunction must specify the acts which would constitute breach, so that defendants can identify what they may and may not do. The court will not generally grant an order simply restraining conduct in breach of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or conduct which is merely unlawful. The proposed wording concerning articles incorporating designs was also technically inappropriate, since articles are made to designs rather than incorporating them.
2. Statutory wording. Under section 226(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, reproduction by making articles to a design involves copying so as to produce articles exactly or substantially to that design. An injunction framed as prohibiting articles made to similar or substantially similar designs would extend beyond that statutory prohibition.
3. Interim relief. Applying American Cyanamid principles, there was no real dispute that an injunction should cover the original bumpers, described as version 1. A short-term injunction was also granted for version 2. There was a serious issue to be tried as to infringement, including whether the articles were exactly or substantially to the claimant’s design. The claimant had a good case that consumers might associate version 2 with it, creating a risk of reputational damage. The claimant’s cross-undertaking was sufficient for short-term relief. The injunction was not continued to trial because fuller evidence and consideration might lead to a different conclusion.
4. Disclosure. The threshold requirement for Norwich Pharmacal disclosure was necessity, distinct from desirability. Even where that threshold is met, the court retains a broad discretion. On the evidence, the defendants would be primarily liable for any infringement, the relevant moulds had been destroyed, and disclosure of further manufacturing information was unnecessary and disproportionate. The disclosure application was refused.

The parties were directed to settle the terms and duration of the short-term injunction and the return date. The proposed general injunction was refused.