The High Court has refused The Irish Times Limited’s application to prevent Times Newspapers Limited from launching a digital Irish edition of The Times, finding that the plaintiff did not move quickly enough to obtain interlocutory relief.
In a judgment delivered on 27 July 2015, Mr Justice Hedigan said the application arose from the defendant’s plan to launch an Irish digital edition with an editor and staff in Ireland, aimed at Irish readers and competing with The Irish Times’ digital newspaper. The proposed branding included “The Times (Irish Edition)”.
The Irish Times claimed the name, advertising and presentation could infringe its Irish and Community trade marks, reproduce its “IT” logo, or pass off the new publication as connected with its newspaper. It argued that the words “Irish” and “Times” together could cause confusion or weaken its brand. Times Newspapers disputed those claims, saying it was entitled to use its registered “The Times” mark and accurately describe an Irish edition. It also argued that any loss could be compensated and that the application came too late.
Justice Hedigan considered delay first. He said the evidence showed that the intended launch had been common knowledge since September 2014. He referred to tweets about recruitment for an editor of The Times Ireland and the appointment, which had circulated among senior Irish Times staff. The judgment also noted that an Irish Times editor registered Twitter handles using “thetimesireland” and “timesireland”.
The judge acknowledged that the parties had coexisted in Ireland for more than 150 years under similar names, and that readers sometimes confused The Irish Times with The Sunday Times. He also noted the defendant’s substantial preparations for the digital launch, including hiring an editor and staff.
Applying the promptness requirement for interlocutory relief, Justice Hedigan concluded that The Irish Times had not moved with reasonable expedition. He refused the injunction on that basis. The court did not determine whether the plaintiff had an arguable trade mark or passing-off claim, or whether damages would be an adequate remedy. The ruling concerned interim relief pending trial; it did not resolve the substantive claims.