Oddur Fridriksson v Samherji HF

A business may possess goodwill in the United Kingdom through indirect trading arrangements, including sales through a distributor or intermediary. A domain name and website created to impersonate a business and publish false statements may constitute an instrument of fraud, supporting injunctive relief and transfer of the domain name. Copyright fair dealing for parody requires the work to evoke an existing work while being noticeably different and expressing humour or mockery. Artistic or political purpose does not protect a deliberately deceptive imitation presented as genuine. Freedom of expression requires balancing against intellectual property and reputation rights, but does not create a defence where the defendant’s conduct crosses from criticism into impersonation and misinformation.

Samherji HF obtained summary judgment before Master Teverson for passing off, copyright infringement and malicious falsehood arising from a website operated through the domain name samherji.co.uk. The website was designed to appear to be Samherji’s official website and contained a fabricated apology and press release. It also reproduced Samherji’s logo and part of its brochure.

The Master granted declarations, injunctive relief and an order recognising Samherji’s ownership of the domain name. Oddur Fridriksson appealed, arguing that Samherji lacked United Kingdom goodwill, that the website involved no actionable deception or damage, that the copying was protected by fair dealing for parody or other expressive purposes, and that the issues required a trial. The central issues were whether the claims had no real prospect of being resisted and whether freedom of expression altered that conclusion.

1. Passing off. The Master correctly applied the three elements of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage or likely damage. Goodwill could exist despite Samherji’s indirect sales through Seagold Ltd and despite the absence of sales to end consumers under the Samherji name. The website and domain name were deliberately constructed to appear official and were likely to deceive. The domain name was an instrument of fraud because it formed part of a plan to deceive, even though the defendant was not a conventional cybersquatter. The principle in British Telecommunications plc v One in a Million Ltd supported transfer of the domain name.
2. Copyright. The reproduction of the logo and brochure was accepted. Under sections 30 and 30A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the parody defence failed. Applying Deckmyn v Vandersteen, the copied works were reproduced essentially in full, were not noticeably different, and were not used for humour or mockery. The website was intended to appear genuine and the defendant’s admitted element of deception was inconsistent with parody or fair dealing.
3. Malicious falsehood. The false statements included implied statements that the publication emanated from Samherji and that Samherji adopted the apology and commitments. Implied statements were sufficient. Under section 3 of the Defamation Act 1952, the relevant question was whether, on facts known or reasonably knowable to the defendant, financial loss was objectively likely. That requirement and damage were satisfied.
4. Freedom of expression and summary judgment. The court must balance Article 10 rights against competing property and reputation rights. The Master carried out the necessary balancing exercise. The deceptive presentation was materially different from public criticism or artistic protest that did not impersonate Samherji. No relevant issue required trial investigation. The appeal had no real prospect of success and permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Chancery Division): Master Teverson granted summary judgment for Samherji on 14 November 2024: [2024] EWHC 2892 (Ch).
• High Court (Chancery Division): Sir Anthony Mann refused permission to appeal after the rolled-up hearing and upheld the Master’s conclusions: [2025] EWHC 1873 (Ch).