Cartier v Sky: High Court can order ISPs to block counterfeit websites

What happened

Richemont, the group behind Cartier, Montblanc and IWC, asked the court to order the UK's five major internet service providers, Sky, BT, EE, TalkTalk and Virgin, to block subscriber access to six websites advertising and selling counterfeit versions of its branded goods. There was no specific law giving courts this power for trademark cases, unlike copyright, where a particular statute already allowed it. The ISPs themselves hadn't infringed any trademark. Richemont argued the court still had the power to make the order against them as intermediaries whose services were being used by the website operators to reach customers.

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

The court found it had jurisdiction under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to grant this kind of order, reading that power alongside an EU enforcement directive that specifically envisages orders against intermediaries. The conditions were met: the ISPs were intermediaries, the websites were infringing by targeting UK consumers, the website operators used the ISPs' services, and the ISPs knew what was happening. After weighing the cost to the ISPs, how effective the blocking would actually be, whether other options existed, and the impact on ordinary internet users, the court granted the orders, but added safeguards including a two-year sunset clause so the blocks wouldn't run indefinitely without review.

What we learned from this

• What I'd take from this is that trademark owners facing persistent counterfeit websites now have a real option beyond chasing the sellers directly: going after the ISPs that connect UK customers to those sites.
• This remedy isn't automatic. The court weighed cost to the ISPs and impact on lawful internet users before granting it, so expect scrutiny of proportionality in any similar application.
• Blocking orders of this kind tend to come with built-in limits, such as a sunset clause, rather than permanent blocks, so ongoing monitoring and possible renewal is part of the picture.
• This case dealt with trademark infringement via websites targeting UK consumers; it's worth checking how a similar claim would need to show UK targeting and actual knowledge by the ISP.

Things to be aware of

The businesses involved

What happened next

• The ISPs appealed, and the Court of Appeal in 2016 upheld the jurisdiction to grant website-blocking orders in trademark cases.Source: 8Newsquare
• The 2016 Court of Appeal decision also addressed which party should bear the costs of implementing blocking orders.Source: 11Southsquare
• Academic commentary described the case as a UK court issuing a blocking order against ISPs to tackle online counterfeit sales.Source: Wilmap, May 2018
• The full judgment was later republished in a law report for practitioners.Source: Researchgate, July 2026

What others said about it

• The University of Huddersfield's academic update tracked how the 2016 Court of Appeal decision upheld the website-blocking injunction against the ISPs.Source: Eprints
• The Open Casebook entry used this judgment as a teaching example for courses on internet platforms and intellectual property law.Source: Opencasebook