The Blocking Injunction: A Comparative and Critical Review of the EU, Singaporean and Australian Regimes

(2016) 38(2) E.I.P.R. 9

Posted: 29 Jun 2016

See all articles by Alpana Roy

Alpana Roy

University of Waikato

Althaf Marsoof

Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University

Date Written: June 29, 2016

Abstract

This article critically, and comparatively, evaluates the legal basis and key shortcomings of the blocking injunction, which has gained popularity in the EU, Singapore and lately Australia, as an alternative to the extrajudicial “notice and takedown” approach to enforcing intellectual property rights. The article concludes that there are problems not only with the remedy itself, but also in the manner in which the blocking injunction is implemented. The fact that multiple proceedings have to be filed in order to obtain a global level of enforcement and the possibility of blocking measures being circumvented are problems with the remedy itself. In the EU context, at least, not only does the implementation of the blocking injunction fall short of due process requirements, but also the legal basis for the remedy in the context of enforcing trade mark rights is questionable.

Keywords: Australia; Blocking injunctions; Comparative law; Copyright; Due process; EU law; Online infringement; Singapore

Suggested Citation

Roy, Alpana and Marsoof, Althaf, The Blocking Injunction: A Comparative and Critical Review of the EU, Singaporean and Australian Regimes (June 29, 2016). (2016) 38(2) E.I.P.R. 9, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2802037

Alpana Roy

University of Waikato ( email )

Private Bag 3105
Hamilton, Waikato 3240
New Zealand
+64 (0) 7 838 4090 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://waikato.ac.nz

Althaf Marsoof (Contact Author)

Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University ( email )

Singapore, 639798
Singapore

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
1,267
PlumX Metrics