Pitman Training Ltd & anr v. Nominet UK & anr [1997] EWHC Ch 367 (22nd May, 1997)

Pitman Training Ltd & anr v. Nominet UK & anr [1997] EWHC Ch 367 (22nd May, 1997)

None of the three causes of action advanced by the plaintiffs—passing off, interference with contract, or abuse of process—were reasonably arguable on the facts or in law. The plaintiffs had no viable cause of action against the second defendant, and therefore no basis for interlocutory relief.

Citation
[1997] EWHC Ch 367
Parties
First Plaintiff: Pitman Training Ltd.; Second Plaintiff: PTC Oxford Ltd.; First Defendant: Nominet UK; Second Defendant: Pearson Professional Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Hearing of Application for Interlocutory Injunction Pending Trial
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed; leave to amend to add abuse of process refused; costs of interlocutory proceedings awarded to the successful defendant in any event; leave to appeal refused; injunction continued for two weeks to allow application to Court of Appeal.
Legal Topics
Domain Names, Passing Off, Interference With Contract, Abuse of Process, Injunctions
Intellectual Property Contract Law Tort Law Domain Names Passing Off Interference With Contract Abuse of Process Injunctions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pitman Training Ltd.

First Plaintiff

PTC Oxford Ltd.

Second Plaintiff

Nominet UK

First Defendant

Pearson Professional Ltd.

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Hearing of Application for Interlocutory Injunction Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have a viable cause of action against the second defendant to justify interlocutory relief
  2. 2 Whether use of the domain name 'pitman.co.uk' by the second defendant constitutes passing off
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant tortiously interfered with the plaintiffs' contract with their service provider

Ratio Decidendi

None of the three causes of action advanced by the plaintiffs—passing off, interference with contract, or abuse of process—were reasonably arguable on the facts or in law. The plaintiffs had no viable cause of action against the second defendant, and therefore no basis for interlocutory relief.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed; leave to amend to add abuse of process refused; costs of interlocutory proceedings awarded to the successful defendant in any event; leave to appeal refused; injunction continued for two weeks to allow application to Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed
  • Leave to amend writ to add abuse of process refused