“The Claimant’s first cause of action is also against the Second Defendant [Monaco Telecom] that through the deliberate use and set up of a Monaco-Telecom server post (November 20, 2008) they copied and issued to the public the Infringement (an unauthorised complete copy of theirearth.com body of work) and thus infringed the Claimant’s copyright in the Work under …. the CDPA.”
“It seems two different versions of the site were shown e.g. in the Google Cache or Robtex at May 2009. One version was showing the correct customer’s content and images (from 195.138.61.130) [the authorised IP address with Knipp] and used the correct label theirearth.com the other version labelled as www.theirearth.com did show almost duplicate content, but with some different images, and that content was labelled as being cached from 195.78.26.68. Additionally, when searching for ‘theirearth’ not only the correct version was referenced within the search engines search results but also the false page version (from 195.78.26.68) with an almost similar page ranking as the correct website from 195.138.61.130.”
“Google’s generation of page titles and descriptions (or “snippets”) is completely automated and takes into account both the content of a page as well as references to it that appear on the web. The goal of the snippet and title is best to represent and describe each result and explain how it relates to the user’s query. … If we’ve detected that a particular result has one of the above issues with its title, we may try to generate an improved title from anchors, on-page text, or other sources. However, sometimes even pages with well- formulated, concise, descriptive titles will end up with different titles in our search results to better indicate their relevance to the query. There’s a simple reason for this: the title tag as specified by a webmaster is limited to being static, fixed regardless of the query. Once we know the user’s query, we can often find alternative text from a page that better explains why that result is relevant. Using this alternative text as a title helps the user, and it also can help your site.”
“It appears to show the results of a check of the content of the authoritative nameservers displayed”
“In my view on its proper construction the rule cannot be construed as confined to claims relating to the ownership or possession of property. It extends to any claim for relief (whether for damages or otherwise) so long as it is related to property located within the jurisdiction. This construction vests in the court a wider jurisdiction, but since the jurisdiction is discretionary the court can and will in each case consider whether the character and closeness of the relationship such that the exorbitant jurisdiction against foreigners abroad should properly be exercised.”
“[17] When the court is deciding whether it has jurisdiction, it must scrutinise most jealously the factor which gives rise to jurisdiction. As Pearson J held in Societe Generale de Paris v Dreyfus Bros (1859) 29 ChD 239, 242-243: “it becomes a very serious question … whether this court ought to put a foreigner, who owes no allegiance here, to the inconvenience and annoyance of being brought to contest his rights in this country, and I for one say, most distinctly, that I think this court ought to be exceedingly careful before it allows a writ to be served out of the jurisdiction.” [18] The court has jurisdiction if a “good arguable” case is shown that the case falls within one of the cases set out in the CPR (known as “jurisdictional gateways”). I consider in paras 27 and 71 below what provisions of the CPR are relevant. At this point, I need to explain what is required to show a quotes good arguable case”
“It is also right to remember that the ‘good arguable case’ test, although obviously applicable to the ex parte stage, becomes of most significance at the inter partes stage where two arguments are being weighed in the interlocutory context which, as I have stressed, must not become a ‘trial’. Good arguable case reflects in that context that one side has a much better argument on the material available. It is the concept which the phrase reflects on which it is important to concentrate, i.e. of the court being satisfied or unsatisfied as it can be having regard to the limitations which an interlocutory process imposes that factors exist which allow the court to take jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added)
“I am bound to apply the ‘Canada Trust gloss’ whilst being careful not to prejudice the determination of the factual issue at trial. The ‘Canada Trust gloss’ does however advise the court to concentrate on whether the court is satisfied or unsatisfied as it can be having regard to the limitations which an interlocutory process imposes that factors exist which allow the court to take jurisdiction. It seems to me that in a case where there is, in the main, a conflict of evidence which cannot be resolved without appearing to conduct a pre-trial it is particularly important that the court asks itself whether the factors exist which allow the court to take jurisdiction.” [21] In my judgement, when applying the Canada Trust gloss, we are entitled to bear in mind that Waller LJ also held that (1) the test was flexible (at p 555H); (2) the court should not be drawn into deciding issues of fact (at p 555F), and (3) the decision is to be made on the material available (at p 555F). [22] Our conclusion will not be binding at trial. However, the issue (as in Issue 2 below) may simply not matter at trial, in which case this is the only chance the parties have to air it. [23] As submitted on behalf of Lady Brownlie, when looking for “the much better argument” the court is concerned with the question of relative plausibility. But there is also an absolute standard to be met. The words used by Waller LJ, namely a “much better argument” mean more than that, on the material available, the case is arguable. There must be some substance to it: since we are deciding a question of jurisdiction, the evidence must achieve an acceptable level of quality and adequacy. However, the standard to be attained is not that of succeeding on the balance of probabilities because there is no trial: see per Flaux J in Erste Group Bank AG, London Branch v JSC “VMZ Red October”[2013] EWHC 2926 (Comm) . [24] In any event, the court is not bound to accept a witness statement which is inherently defective, and certainly should not do so if it conflicts with other incontrovertible evidence or is unreliable for some other tangible reason, or, as Christopher Clark J put it in Cherney v Deripaska (No 2) [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 333, para 44, “wholly implausible”.” “it becomes a very serious question … whether this court ought to put a foreigner, who owes no allegiance here, to the inconvenience and annoyance of being brought to contest his rights in this country, and I for one say, most distinctly, that I think this court ought to be exceedingly careful before it allows a writ to be served out of the jurisdiction.” “It is also right to remember that the ‘good arguable case’ test, although obviously applicable to the ex parte stage, becomes of most significance at the inter partes stage where two arguments are being weighed in the interlocutory context which, as I have stressed, must not become a ‘trial’. Good arguable case reflects in that context that one side has a much better argument on the material available. It is the concept which the phrase reflects on which it is important to concentrate, i.e. of the court being satisfied or unsatisfied as it can be having regard to the limitations which an interlocutory process imposes that factors exist which allow the court to take jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added)
“… in relation to claims in tort the requirements of 3.1(9)(b) obliges the court to look at the tort in a common sense way, and ask whether damage has resulted from substantial and efficacious acts committed within the jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not such acts have been committed elsewhere.”
“Subject to the following provisions of this section, if on the date when any right of action accrued for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, the person to whom it accrued was under a disability, the action may be brought at any time before the expiration of six years from the date when he ceased to be under a disability … notwithstanding that the period of limitation has expired.”