Publisher fails to stop wedding magazine
He claims his magazine entitled Irish Wedding and New Home has a circulation of 5,500.
In refusing the application, Mr Justice Thomas Smyth said the defendants had nothing to be proud of in the way they went about the publication of their magazine. However, he said that by granting the injunction it would be tantamount to determining the issue and he therefore refused the injunction. He believed that the way the defendants had operated had the hallmarks of stealth.
On the question of delay in informing the plaintiff about the publication he said he did not see them as having waited until the last minute but rather he saw it arising from a lack of frankness by the defendants and he felt there was something opportunistic about the matter.
Mr Hogan is a company director of INK Publishing Limited and had sought the interlocutory injunction against Zest Publishing Limited, Jacinta O’Brien and Martina O’Loughlin.
The case comes up for mention on September 10 next when a date for a full hearing may be fixed.
In an affidavit Mr Hogan said he began publishing a magazine entitled Irish Wedding and New Home in 1996 and there had been about six issues each year, the most recent being for July and August 2003. He said he engaged the services of Jacinta O'Brien on January 1, 2001, to act as editor of his magazine and on February 5, 2001, hired Martina O’Loughlin.
In September of 2002 he discussed the matter of a suitable offer for his magazine with Ms O’Brien and subsequently detailed sensitive information was revealed to her. He also became aware of Ms O’Loughlin’s interest in working with Ms O’Brien to acquire ownership of the title but no formal offer was made.
He then became aware of rumours in April last that Ms O’Brien was in the process of setting up a magazine. She denied this. On April 25 last Ms O’Loughlin resigned from her position with the magazine.
Mr Hogan stated in his affidavit that by May and June last questions were being asked by companies who placed advertisements with his magazine regarding the future of his publication as at this stage both Ms O’Brien and Ms O’Loughlin had left him to set up their own magazine.
He said he was surprised and upset to find out that the proposed new magazine was similar to his own and was likely to mislead the public into believing it was his publication. He believed it was the defendants’ intention to pass off their magazine as that of the plaintiff.
The court was told the magazine was due to be launched last night and Mr Hogan stated in his affidavit that such a launch would do irreparable damage to the sales of his magazine. He said the defendants had exploited in an unlawful manner information they obtained while in a position of trust in his employment.
Counsel for the defendants said their magazine had a different layout, size, typeface and content. In addition, two other magazines on the market had the word ‘wedding’ in them. If the plaintiff secured an injunction it would put the defendants out of business.
