Wonderful service from start to finish.
Defendant's failure to assign domain name results is finding of contempt of Court
In the case of Juul Labs Inc v Quick Juul Ltd (formerly Quick Xuul Ltd and Quick Juul Ltd) [2019] EWHC 1281 (Ch) (21 May 2019) the High Court has found an individual to be in contempt of Court having intentionally breached the terms of a court order by failing to sign two documents to transfer a domain name to the claimants in passing off proceedings. The sentence handed down was two months' imprisonment.
The Court considered the terms of the court order had been explained to the defendant very carefully, but he had deliberately acted in an obstructive manner by signing and returning the wrong documents. The Court considered that the initial failure to provide the documentation was a technical breach which escalated into a substantive breach once the defendant knew about the order and he chose to ignore it.
A finding of contempt would have been avoided if genuine remorse had been shown and the individual had complied immediately once in receipt of order. However, the individual did not comply until he was effectively forced to at a committal hearing some weeks after being warned that he was in contempt. The Court found there was a very significant degree of culpability and an apology offered at the contempt hearing counted for little as it was given at such a late stage.
This article has been published as part of the latest issue of our Commercial Brief, detailed within the In Brief section. To view the other articles within our Commercial Brief click here, alternatively view the other In Brief articles below:
"Relational" contract benefits from implied duty of good faith
Bank's relationship manager had no authority to write off borrower debts
ENDS
This is for information purposes only and is no substitute for, and should not be interpreted as, legal advice. All content was correct at the time of publishing and we cannot be held responsible for any changes that may invalidate this article.