I see yesterday Dunnes Stores lost challenge to revenue commission disputing bill from Revenue Commission in relation to plastic bag levy. Dunnes argued that the levy should not apply to bags provided for vegetables, meet etc which they were billed for. Seems harsh to me. Only wish it were an EU judgement as I love hearing the Tories throwing wobblers about bureaucracy in Brussels etc.
Another case that interested me was the dispute between McAmbridges and Brennans. The former took action against the latter as they had argued that the former had copied their packing and copyright infringement. While McAmbridges won the case and Brennans were not permitted to sell their wholewheat in packing confusingly similar they did have to contribute 40% of costs as some of the claims they made were very hard to prove (such as Brennans deliberately copied the packing) and took up a lengthy time in court. In addition a stay has now being issued so Brennans do not have to take their product off their shelves just yet. Fascinating stuff!
The McCambridges case was fairly clear cut I thought and I thought Brennans got off very lightly. Anyone familiar with the two products will know how similar they look.
The Dunnes one is a bit funny as well. The judge formed the opinion that the bags were big enough to be used for other items along with their intended item (fruit & veg). I reckon Dunnes could win that one on appeal.
It seems some Dunnes were letting customers take bags at the counter bigger than the bags above but smaller than the bags they sold for 22c and letting customers get away for free. That seems to be where the issue is stemming from.
They showed them on the news last night. They were about mid sized between a small veg bag and normal plastic bag, but they were of much lighter material.
It seemed some stores just went on a solo run with them. They had them on a roll placed at the quick checkouts or whatever ones you’d only use for less than 10 items I believe. A fairly costly mistake but Dunnes have apparently been expecting the judgement to go against them.
There was something similar to Brennan’s/McCambridges a few years ago when I think it was Tesco, created a Puffin Bar. It was similar in size, shape, packaging to the Penguin Bar made by McVities.
McVities brought it to court saying Tesco breached numerous issues in regards to branding and so on and that the consumer could easily get the two mixed up.
Tesco won the case however.
Stated that the consumer could not get them mixed up as the Penguin lives in the South Pole and the Puffin, the North Pole.
[font=Arial][size=4]
A student has lost his case against six newspapers in a bid to block them naming him in connection with an allegedly defamatory video.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=4]
Eoin McKeogh, a student at Dublin City University, says he was not in the country at the time of an allegedly criminal incident which surfaced in a video on the Internet.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=4]
Today, High Court Judge Michael Peart said the right to have justice administered in public far exceeded the right to privacy other than in exceptional cases and this was not an exceptional case.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=4]
He said it was counterintuitive that someone would try to vindicate his good name anonymously.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=4]
Mr Justice Michael Peart said the Court did not have a magic wand and the damage was done. He said the genie was out of the bottle.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=4]
The video showed a group of people refusing to pay a taxi fare late at night. Mr McKeogh was wrongly identified online as being in the taxi car.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=4]
Today, Mr Justice Michael Peart also said he was completely satisfied by a perusal of Mr McKeogh’s passport that he was in Japan at the time the video was made and could not have been depicted in it.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=4]
Mr McKeogh’s lawyer Pauline Walley also told the court that the taxi driver had come before the Court in an earlier hearing and said Mr McKeogh was not in the car.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=4]
Eoin McKeogh has already secured temporary injunctions preventing named Internet sites including Facebook and Google from broadcasting the allegedly defamatory video.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=4]
That case will return to the High Court on Friday.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=4]
All the newspapers have applied for costs in the case as has Mr McKeogh’s own lawyer.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=4]
Mr Justice Michael Peart adjourned the question of costs until 10 February.[/size][/font]
Bizarre case that one - someone posted up an earlier story on the weird news stories thread or something. Not really sure who named him or what the background to the whole incident is but sounds pretty clear he was wrongly identified in the first place.
Utterly bizzare. I cant understand what this mong was at. A video was put on youtube saying he took off and didnt pay a taxi man. and he went after google, facebook and 6 newspapers to clear his name? what a fucktard. Why didnt he just tell the person who had it on youtube to take it down, and then just post a comment saying it wasnt him. Absolutley no one knew this lad, and now the whole country does. I honestly cant understand what he was trying to achieve here.
Yeah I think it was originally put up on a taxi forum and he was wrongly identified. Going after all those newspapers though was really strange. Almost like an attention seeking stunt or something.
originally it was said he was doing it because he didnt want his name to be tarnished when he went for jobs and that in the future. I think if I was a prospective employer of his, I’d be more inclined not to hire him based on this rather than if he had indeed ran off from paying a taxi.