Cartier v Sky: Court of Appeal allows trademark blocking orders against ISPs

What happened

Richemont, through its subsidiary Cartier International AG, owns luxury brands including Cartier and Montblanc. It discovered websites advertising and selling counterfeit versions of its goods and asked the High Court to order five major UK internet service providers to block access to those sites. The providers had not infringed any trademark themselves but were the gateway UK customers used to reach the sites. The High Court granted the blocking orders. The ISPs appealed, arguing no English law gave the court power to make such orders for trademark infringement (unlike copyright, which has its own specific statute), and that even if it did, the orders were disproportionate and it was Richemont, not the ISPs, that ought to pay for implementing them.

What did the court decide in Cartier International v British Sky Broadcasting?

By a majority, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court already had the power to make these orders under its general injunction power in section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, read alongside an EU directive on enforcing intellectual property rights. That power could be used against an innocent intermediary, such as an ISP, once certain conditions were met: the ISP had to be an intermediary whose services were being used to infringe, and the ISP had to know that. The orders here met those conditions and were proportionate. The majority also held the ISPs would pay for implementing the blocks, treating this as an ordinary cost of running their business. One judge disagreed on the costs point, taking the view that Richemont, as the business seeking the order, was better placed to pay those implementation costs instead.

What we learned from this

• What I'd take from this is that a business selling genuine goods under a registered name, logo or tagline has a real route to get fake-selling websites blocked at the ISP level in the UK, not just through copyright law. It's worth knowing this applies even where the internet provider has done nothing wrong. Expect to budget for the cost of bringing the application itself, since the cost of implementing the block fell on the ISPs here, not the brand owner. This remedy is aimed at counterfeit-selling websites; it isn't a general tool for every trademark dispute.

Things to be aware of

The businesses involved

What happened next

• The Supreme Court later considered the case further, addressing which party should bear the costs of implementing blocking orders, the point on which the Court of Appeal itself had divided.Source: Euppublishing
• Commentary noted the decision extended the website-blocking regime beyond copyright into trademark infringement, confirming courts could compel ISPs to block sites selling counterfeits.Source: Eprints
• Legal commentators later observed that the blocking-order approach established in this litigation was subsequently applied to other sectors, including counterfeit and unlicensed medicines.Source: Mishcon de Reya LLP, June 2026

What others said about it

• 8 New Square noted the ruling confirmed courts had jurisdiction to grant blocking orders against innocent intermediaries once threshold conditions on knowledge and use were satisfied.Source: 8Newsquare
• 11 South Square highlighted the implications for intermediary liability, framing the case as a significant extension of remedies available against parties who are not themselves infringers.Source: 11Southsquare