[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Grant v Google UK Ltd. [2005] EWHC 3444 (Ch) (17 May 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/3444.html Cite as: [2005] EWHC 3444 (Ch)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		17 may 2006

MR JUSTICE RIMER:

1. This is an application notice issued on 10 May 2006 by Helen Grant, who sues as the trustee of the Individuals Self-Discovery Trust. The notice seeks relief against the respondent, Google UK Limited, of a Norwich Pharmacal nature (See Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs & Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133).
2. The particulars of claim, supported by a statement of truth made by Ms Grant, were issued on 10 May 2006. They allege that the Trust owns the copyright of a work called Unlock Reality, which is due to be published in the United Kingdom in September 2006 and in the United States in October 2006. The trigger for this application is the Trust's discovery that, without its consent, an earlier draft of the work has been made available on the internet. It has been made so available for free download through an advertisement generated by the Google internet search engine, which leads (or at least did lead) to a website with the domain name of Realityunlocked.com. The advertisement used the name of the Trust's text, namely Unlock Reality. The Trust's investigations into the matter led it to discover that the website had been registered through a company called Domains By Proxy, which is said to specialise in the cloaking of the identity of domain owners. Requests by the Trust have failed to reveal the identity of the owners of the website.
3. The Trust concluded that Google would have the contact details of the advertiser responsible for the advertisement whom the Trust, not unreasonably, concludes are the persons committing what it regards as an infringement of its copyright. Unless, however, it can discover the identity of the advertiser, it cannot hope to prevent further such infringements of its copyright, although (as I understand the evidence) it appears that following complaints the offending website has been suspended.
4. The Trust has sought Google's aid in the identification of the advertiser but it has declined to comply, saying it cannot do so for reasons which the evidence does not explain explicitly, although it may be because of a perceived duty of confidentiality to its customers. Google has, however, suggested that the Trust should apply for the present Order, which is one requiring Google to make the requested disclosure.
5. The proceedings and application notice have been served on Google and Ms Cindy Yip of Google's legal department has told the Trust that Google would not oppose the present application, provided that the Trust abandoned the prohibitory injunction it has sought in paragraph (1) of the application notice. The Trust has agreed to do so and I am not therefore concerned with giving or not giving relief under that paragraph.
6. For reasons shortly explained, I am satisfied that this is a case in which Google has become mixed up in the apparent wrongdoing of others and that it is in a position to disclose the identity of those others to the Trust. I will make an Order accordingly. I consider, however, as is usual in these applications that the claimant must undertake to pay Google's proper costs of providing the requested information.