The Honourable Mr Justice Arnold of the English High Court has ordered that Bestnet should publish the following statement which is in a form agreed between Bestnet and Vestergaard Frandsen:
“Bestnet, which also trades as Intection, has been held by the High Court in London to have misused the trade secrets of Vestergaard Frandsen in the development of the Netprotect recipe which was launched in October 2005. The full text of the public judgment can be found at the following link: click here Bestnet has been restrained by the High Court from manufacturing or selling products made to the initial recipe of the Netprotect product but is not subject to an injunction restraining the manufacture and sale of the recipe for which WHOPES II recommendation was granted in December 2007”
Bestnet have the following additional comments to add by way of clarification:
1. The Netprotect product launched in October 2005 was used primarily for promotional purposes.
2. The above injunction does not prevent the sale of the Netprotect product for which WHOPES I recommendation was sought in March 2006 or the product for which WHOPES II recommendation was sought in Spring 2007 or the current product.
3. Although an enquiry as to damages or an account of profits has been ordered, VF have yet to elect which to pursue on the basis of disclosure of documents to be given by Bestnet. No decision has been made by the Court as to whether those damages will be substantial or merely nominal. On the findings of the Court it seems unlikely that they will be substantial, although VF contend otherwise.
4. The costs claimed by VF have to be checked by the Supreme Court Costs Office and that process has not yet started.
5. An interim award of costs was made against Bestnet which the Court have permitted Bestnet to pay by instalments. The Court commented that it was in the interests of VF for Bestnet to survive.
6. Both Bestnet and VF have been given permission to appeal in relation to the injunction granted.
7. Bestnet intend to seek permission to appeal against the finding that it misused VF's confidential information.
|
