UK/HC13F02471/FirstRow TalkTalk

From 451wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

File:FirstRow TalkTalk.pdf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

The Honourable Mr Justice Arnold
16 July 2013
CLAIM NO. HC13F02471

Between

THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED
Claimant/Applicant
-and-
(1) BRITISH SKY BROADCASTING LIMITED
(2) BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC
(3) EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LIMITED
(4) TALKTALK TELECOM LIMITED
(5) TELEFÓNICA UK LIMITED
(6) VIRGIN MEDIA LIMITED
Defendants/Respondents

ORDER

UPON THE APPLICATION of the Claimant/Applicant ("the Applicant") by notice dated 24 June 2013

AND UPON considering the evidence filed by the Applicant

AND UPON the Court finding that, on the evidence before it, the operators of the FirstRow Websites (as defined below) infringe the copyrights of the Applicant in the UK

AND UPON the Fourth Defendant/Respondent, TalkTalk Telecom Limited, ("the Fourth Respondent") making it clear that it makes no admission of liability.

IT IS ORDERED as against the Fourth Respondent that:

1. In respect of its customers to whose internet access service the system known as SIG (Service Inspection Gateway) is applied, whether optionally or otherwise, the Fourth Respondent shall within 15 working days in relation to the initial notification (and thereafter within 10 working days of receiving any subsequent notification) given in accordance with this paragraph adopt the following technical means to block or attempt to block access to the website currently known as FirstRow Sports currently accessible at the URLs www.firstrowsports.eu, www.firstrow1.eu, www.thefirstrow.eu and any other URLs or IP addresses whose sole or predominant purpose is to enable or facilitate access to the website currently known as FirstRow Sports (hereinafter collectively "the FirstRow Websites"). The FirstRow Websites include any name and URL change to this website notified in writing to the Fourth Respondent by the Applicant from time to time. The technical means to be adopted are URL blocking in respect of each and every URL from which the FirstRow Websites (and their domains and sub-domains which are notified in writing to the Fourth Respondent by the Applicant or its agents) operate.
2. For the avoidance of any doubt, paragraph 1 is complied with if the Fourth Respondent uses the system known as SIG.
3. In respect of its customers to whose internet access service the system known as blackholing is applied, the Fourth Respondent shall within 15 working days in relation to the initial notification (and thereafter within 10 working days of receiving any subsequent notification) given in accordance with this paragraph adopt the following technical means to block or attempt to block access to the FirstRow Websites at any IP address the sole or predominant purpose of which is to enable or facilitate access to the FirstRow Websites. The technical means to be adopted are IP blocking in respect of each and every IP address from which the FirstRow Websites operate and which is:
(a) notified in writing to the Fourth Respondent by the Applicant or its agents; and
(b) in respect of which the Applicant or its agents notify the Fourth Respondent that the server with the notified IP address does not also host a site that is not part of the FirstRow Websites.
For the avoidance of any doubt, paragraph 3 is complied with if the Fourth Respondent uses the system known as blackholing.
4. The Fourth Respondent shall not be in breach of paragraphs 1 and 3 if it temporarily suspends the relevant blocking therein provided with the consent of the Applicant or its agents, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
5. The Applicant or its agent will notify the Fourth Respondent should any IP address, URL and/or domain name which has already been notified to the Fourth Respondent under the terms of the Order cease to enable or facilitate access to the FirstRow Websites (in which case the Fourth Respondent shall no longer be obliged to block that IP address, URL and/or domain name).
6. For the avoidance of doubt, the Fourth Respondent is wholly reliant on the Applicant accurately identifying the IP addresses, URLs and/or domain names from which the FirstRow Websites operate and which should be blocked under the terms of the Order. The Fourth Respondent shall have no obligation to check itself whether the Applicant's determination is correct.
7. The parties have permission to apply on notice in the event of any material change of circumstances including, for the avoidance of doubt but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in respect of costs, consequences for the parties and effectiveness of the aforesaid technical means from time to time.
8. The operator(s) of the FirstRow Websites and the operators of any other website who claim to be affected by this order, are to have permission to apply on notice to vary or discharge this order insofar as it affects such an applicant, any such application to be on notice to all the parties and to be supported by materials setting out and justifying the grounds for the application. Any such application shall clearly indicate the status of the applicant and indicate clearly (supported by evidence) that it is the operator of any website which is the subject of such application.
9. There be no order for costs.

Order sent to

DLA Piper UK LLP 3 Noble Street London EC2V 7EE

Solicitors for the Applicant