Union Des Associations Europeennes De Football v British Telecommunications Plc & Ors [2018] EWHC 1900 (Ch)

[2018] EWHC 1900 (Ch)Case No IL-2017-000052IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEBUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALESINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (CHANCERY DIVISION)Venue Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NLDate 24 July 2018
Before
MR JUSTICE ARNOLD
Between
UNION DES ASSOCIATIONS EUROPÉENNES DE FOOTBALLClaimant(1) BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLCDefendants(2) EE LIMITEDDefendant(3) PLUSNET PLCDefendant(4) SKY UK LIMITEDDefendant(5) TALKTALK TELECOM LIMITEDDefendant(6) VIRGIN MEDIA LIMITEDDefendant
Jaani Riordan (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP) filed written submissions for Claimant for The Defendants were not representedThe application was considered on paper
Judgment ApprovedMR JUSTICE ARNOLD :
[1]On 21 December 2017 I made an order (“the First Order”) on the application of the Claimant (“UEFA”) requiring the Defendants to take measures to block, or at least impede, access by their customers to streaming servers which deliver infringing live streams of UEFA football match footage to UK consumers (“the Target Servers”). I gave my reasons for making the First Order in Union Des Associations Européennes De Football v British Telecommunications plc [2017] EWHC 3414 (Ch) (“UEFA v BT I”).[2]Paragraph 11 of the First Order gave UEFA permission to apply to extend the operation of the First Order for a further season. UEFA has now applied for such an extension. The application is supported by some of the Defendants and not opposed by the other Defendants and the terms of the order are agreed. Again, however, the Court must be satisfied that it is justified.[3]The evidence filed by UEFA in support of this application demonstrates that the First Order was very effective in achieving the blocking of access to the Target Servers during UEFA matches. Moreover, no evidence has been found of overblocking despite checks having been undertaken. There was one incident on which a stream was erroneously blocked, but it was not a case of overblocking because it was in fact an infringing stream although not covered by the terms of the First Order.[4]The order sought by UEFA differs from the First Order in three main respects. First, it covers additional UEFA competitions. Secondly, there is an adjustment to the first criterion in Confidential Schedule 3. This enlarges the subset of infringing steaming servers to be blocked. Thirdly, the requirement to notify hosting providers is made subject to a short delay. This is in order to prevent the order being circumvented. The evidence filed by UEFA in support of the application demonstrates that there have been attempts to circumvent the First Order, and therefore this concern is a very real one.[5]Having considered the evidence and the terms of the order, I am satisfied that the Court has jurisdiction to make the order sought and that it is appropriate to exercise my discretion to do so for essentially the same reasons as I gave in UEFA v BT I.[6]It is agreed that there should be no order as to costs.