English court imposes prison sentence in Juul TM case
The English High Court has sentenced a man to two months in prison after he failed to comply with a court order in a trademark infringement and passing off action involving vape manufacturer Juul Labs.
In December last year, the court ordered Gary Wilson to transfer ownership of the quickjuul.com domain name to Juul’s UK subsidiary within 24 hours of the order being issued.
The order was handed down after a case was brought by Juul and its subsidiary, which alleged that British company Quickjuul had committed passing off and trademark infringement.
Wilson was a director of Quickjuul until January this year.
According to the latest High Court judgment, handed down by Justice Anthony Mann, it was beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson was aware of the order and his obligation to comply with it by at least January 24, after a court hearing on that date.
The court found that lawyers representing Juul had repeatedly made efforts to convince Wilson to sign the required letters instructing the transfer of the domain.
Wilson, however, sent back incorrect letters in what the court said was a “false display of innocence and ignorance”.
“For some reason, probably to achieve delay and perhaps give the impression that he was more simple than he really is, he dashed off his signature on a couple of letters which I do not believe he thought were the right letters,” Mann said.
Mann added that this amounted to Wilson “deliberately indulging” in behaviour that he knew to be obstructive of a court order.
Wilson had claimed that he did not have the authority to transfer ownership of the website and had been told by another former Quickjuul director not to sign the letters.
Mann, however, said that Wilson had “made his own free choice” not to comply with a court order, and therefore bore a “real degree of culpability”.
Rosie Burbidge, partner at Gunnercooke in London, told WIPR that it was “very unusual” to see custodial sentences imposed in IP cases. Nonetheless, she said, “if people refuse to comply with court orders ultimately a committal application is often the only means to ensure compliance”.
“It is always a last resort after a defendant has been given multiple opportunities to comply with the order and, if relevant, apply for leave to appeal,” Burbidge added.
Representatives for Wilson declined to comment when contacted by WIPR.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
Today's top stories:
US senators release draft bill to reform section 101
US Copyright Office approves two NBA logos, but denies another
