Fridriksson v Samherji HF [2025] EWHC 1873 (Ch) (22 July 2025)

Fridriksson v Samherji HF [2025] EWHC 1873 (Ch) (22 July 2025)

The defendant's conduct in registering a domain name and creating a website closely resembling the claimant's, including use of its logo and brochure, constituted passing off, copyright infringement, and malicious falsehood. The acts were deliberate deceptions not protected by fair dealing or parody exceptions, nor by freedom of expression. The claimant had sufficient goodwill in the UK, and the statements were objectively likely to cause pecuniary damage. Summary judgment was appropriate as there was no real prospect of a successful defence at trial.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1873 (Ch)
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Oddur Fridriksson (ODEE); Claimant/respondent: Samherji hf
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Copyright Infringement, Malicious Falsehood, Freedom of Expression, Summary Judgment
Intellectual Property Tort Civil Procedure Passing Off Copyright Infringement Malicious Falsehood Freedom of Expression Summary Judgment

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oddur Fridriksson (ODEE)

Defendant/appellant

Samherji hf

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's actions constituted passing off, copyright infringement, and malicious falsehood
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct was protected by freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the alleged public interest and artistic context

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's conduct in registering a domain name and creating a website closely resembling the claimant's, including use of its logo and brochure, constituted passing off, copyright infringement, and malicious falsehood. The acts were deliberate deceptions not protected by fair dealing or parody exceptions, nor by freedom of expression. The claimant had sufficient goodwill in the UK, and the statements were objectively likely to cause pecuniary damage. Summary judgment was appropriate as there was no real prospect of a successful defence at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for claimant/respondent affirmed
  • Declarations of passing off, copyright infringement, and malicious falsehood against defendant/appellant