ENTERTAINMENT ONE UK LIMITED v CÔNG TY TNHH ĐẦU TƯ CÔNG NGHỆ VÀ DỊCH VỤ SCONNECT VIỆTNAM also known as SCONNECT CO. LTD.

Failure to ask about technical limitations before electronic service is not automatically fatal. The court must identify the requirement, consider the consequences of non-compliance and assess whether the purposes of service have been achieved. Where solicitors agreed to accept service by e-mail, service was made to the agreed addresses, and the claim documents were received and understood, service may be valid despite non-compliance with Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Practice Direction 6A.

Providing more than one agreed e-mail address does not necessarily invalidate service. Under CPR 6.15, retrospective validation may be ordered where there is good reason. For service under a non-exclusive bilateral treaty, the exceptional-circumstances test does not necessarily apply. In internet intellectual-property disputes, accessibility alone is insufficient: the court evaluates objectively whether activity is directed or targeted at consumers in the jurisdiction.

The claimants brought copyright, trade mark and passing-off claims concerning the alleged copying and use of Peppa Pig material in Wolfoo videos and merchandise.

The defendants challenged the court’s jurisdiction. They argued that service of the claim form and particulars of claim by e-mail was invalid because the claimants had not asked about limitations on electronic service and had used more than one e-mail address. They also argued that the defendants did not target the UK market and that another forum was more appropriate.

The court determined the validity of service, the application for alternative service, whether the defendants targeted the UK, and forum conveniens.

1. Service. The claim form and particulars of claim were validly served on 26 January 2022. Practice Direction 6A paragraph 4.2 uses mandatory language, but it does not state that failure to ask about limitations invalidates service. The court must consider the consequences of non-compliance and whether the purposes of service have been achieved.
2. The purposes of service include bringing the claim form to the defendant’s attention, notifying the defendant that proceedings have commenced on a particular day, and establishing when time runs for subsequent procedural steps. Those purposes were achieved. The defendants’ solicitors had agreed to accept electronic service, received the documents, acknowledged receipt, read the particulars and forwarded them to the defendants. The later difficulty concerned links to evidence, not service of the claim form or particulars.
3. The provision of more than one e-mail address did not create uncertainty. The addresses had been provided pursuant to an agreement, receipts were generated, and the time of service remained ascertainable. The contrary approach in Tax Returned was not applied because the present case involved an agreement to use multiple addresses and materially different circumstances.
4. Alternative service. If the primary conclusion were wrong, the court would grant relief under CPR 6.15(2). Where a bilateral service treaty permits methods other than its diplomatic channels, the rationale for requiring exceptional circumstances falls away and the appropriate question is whether there is good reason. Good reason existed because service had been attempted, accepted and understood, and retrospective validation caused no prejudice.
5. Jurisdiction and targeting. The pleadings disclosed a serious issue to be tried and fell within the relevant PD6B gateways. Mere website accessibility is insufficient, but targeting is assessed objectively from the perspective of the average consumer by evaluating all relevant circumstances. The evidence, including UK viewings, UK availability of merchandise, British-English content, UK-related material, advertising and the absence of geo-blocking, established UK targeting.
6. Forum. The defendants did not show that Vietnam was available and clearly or distinctly more appropriate under the Spiliada test. England and Wales was an appropriate forum, having regard to the claimants’ connection with the UK, the creation of the intellectual property, witnesses, pleaded UK damage and the proceedings already issued and served there. The jurisdiction challenge was dismissed.