Cartier v BT: ISPs must be paid for the cost of blocking counterfeit websites
Cartier InternationalvBritish Telecommunications
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Judgment
- 13 June 2018
- Citation
- [2018] UKSC 28
If you want ISPs to block counterfeit sites, expect to pay for their compliance costs yourself.
Cartier, Montblanc and IWC wanted internet providers to block websites selling counterfeit goods, and to bear the cost of doing it. The Supreme Court said the internet providers win on costs.
What happened
Richemont group companies, including Cartier, Montblanc and IWC, had obtained court orders forcing major UK internet service providers to block websites selling counterfeit versions of their branded goods. The ISPs did not challenge the courts' power to make these blocking orders. Instead, they challenged who should pay for putting the blocks in place. The Court of Appeal had decided, by a majority, that the ISPs would bear those implementation costs themselves, as the price of doing business as an internet provider. The ISPs appealed that costs ruling to the Supreme Court.
What did the court decide in Cartier International v British Telecommunications?
The Supreme Court allowed the ISPs' appeal. It held that where an innocent intermediary, someone not at fault and not a party to the wrongdoing, is ordered by a court to help enforce another party's rights, long-standing legal principle says that intermediary is normally entitled to be reimbursed for the reasonable costs of complying. EU law left the question of who pays to national law and did not require ISPs to absorb these costs as the price of their legal protection from liability for traffic passing through their networks. The orders were varied so that Cartier and the other rights holders must indemnify the ISPs for their reasonable implementation costs.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that using the courts to force ISPs to block counterfeit websites is a useful enforcement tool, but it isn't free, and the Supreme Court has made clear who picks up the bill.
- If you're a brand owner seeking a website-blocking order, budget for the ISP's reasonable compliance costs on top of your own legal costs.
- Being an 'innocent intermediary', someone with no fault in the wrongdoing, usually means you're entitled to be paid for helping enforce someone else's rights, not left to fund it yourself.
- This case dealt with trademark counterfeiting, but the same cost principle has already been applied in other blocking order contexts, such as sports broadcasting.
Things to be aware of
- The ruling applies to intermediaries that are legally innocent 'mere conduits', simply carrying data without involvement in the infringing content. It may not apply the same way to providers that cache or host content, where there's more involvement and only conditional legal protection.
- The decision settles who pays for implementing a blocking order. It does not change whether a court will grant one in the first place; that question wasn't in dispute in this case.
- The amount owed to the ISPs still has to be reasonable and will usually need to be worked out in practice, not fixed by this judgment alone.
The businesses involved
Cartier International AG
Part of the Richemont group of luxury goods companies, alongside Montblanc and IWC, which brought the underlying action to block websites selling counterfeit branded goods.
- Note
- Registered outside the UK
British Telecommunications Plc
Major UK internet service provider, registered in England since 1984 and based in London, holding 5 trademarks on the UK trademark register. Still active and trading.
- Companies House
- 01800000 Active
- Incorporated
- April 1984
- Registered office
- London
- Business activity
- Other telecommunications activities
- UK trademarks
- 5
What happened next
- The same approach to blocking orders was later applied in a separate High Court case extending a live sports blocking order against several ISPs for the following season.Source: Wolters Kluwer, October 2018
What others said about it
- Wolters Kluwer's commentary framed the ruling plainly: internet access providers should be compensated for website blocking requested by rights owners, reversing the earlier cost allocation.Source: Wolters Kluwer, October 2018
- Inforrm's case preview flagged that the Supreme Court was specifically being asked to revisit the established practice on who bears the costs of blocking orders, not whether they would be granted.Source: Inforrm, January 2018
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2018] UKSC 28 on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 26 October 2026. Report an error.
