Anton Piller Orders & Bayer Injunctions Quiz Stats

 Plays Quiz not verified by Sporcle

Challenge
Share
Tweet
Embed
Score 0/15 Timer 10:00
0 Plays Today
% Correct
P, based in Germany manufactured computer component & claimed D, its English distributor furnishing a competitor with P’s copyrighted drawings & designs
91.7%
allow P, accompanied by his solicitor, enter D’s premises to inspect & if necessary take away documents and other items specific in the order.
83.3%
Bayer AG v Winter [1986]
83.3%
secure evidence which D would likely destroy in light of any action
66.7%
Clear evidence Ds possess incriminating documents or things & real possibility of destruction before application inter partes can be made
66.7%
O. Ltd v Z [2005]
66.7%
Omrod LJ in Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976]
58.3%
Extremely strong prima facie case
58.3%
% Correct
Damage, potential or actual, must be very serious for the applicant
58.3%
Columbia Picture Industries v Robinson [1987]
50%
Microsoft Corporation v Brightpoint Ireland Ltd (2001)
41.7%
Tate Access Floors Inc. v Boswell [1991]
41.7%
Universal Thermosensors Ltd v Hibben [1992] (Ds should consult with solicitor, must have a woman accompanying, detailed list of items removed, have a rep when at business premises etc.)
41.7%
O’Neill v O’Keefe (2002)
33.3%
Wardle Fabrics Ltd v G. Myristis Ltd [1984]
25%

You're not logged in!

Compare scores with friends on all Sporcle quizzes.
Join for Free
OR
Log In

You Might Also Like...

Show Comments

Extras

Created Feb 27, 2017ReportNominate
Tags:equity, law, revision

Top Quizzes Today


Score Distribution

Your Account Isn't Verified!

In order to create a playlist on Sporcle, you need to verify the email address you used during registration. Go to your Sporcle Settings to finish the process.

Report this User

Report this user for behavior that violates our Community Guidelines.

Details: