What are some of the Use Cases for an Anton Piller Order?
When an employee or vendor “steals” your intellectual property or another company monetises your trademarks, patent or intellectual property rights, without your consent, one of the legal strategies that can be used to checkmate such illegal activity is to get an Anton Piller order from the courts. Global fashion and manufacturing brands often use this strategy to checkmate counterfeit duplication of their products locally and in developed countries. An Anton Piller order has become all the more important as counterfeiting and trade in pirated goods peaked at around $4.5trillion, as of 2020.
What is an Anton Piller Order?
An Anton Piller order is an exceptional type of injunction that compels a defendant to allow a complainant to enter their premises and seize evidence and records, including electronic data and equipment. The primary goal of this order is to preserve evidence. It gets its name from the 1975 case of Anton Piller K.G. v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd., presided over by Lord Denning in the English Court of Appeal.
This unique remedy is granted ex-parte, meaning that a court is expected to grant an Anton Piller order without the prior knowledge of the person alleged to be infringing a complainant’s intellectual property. An Anton Piller order is granted ex-parte to prevent the destruction or concealment of relevant evidence. This order is often used in the realm of intellectual property law for the protection of intellectual property rights such as trademark infringement or patent violations. This order can also be used in cases involving the misappropriation of confidential information by former employees or in the realm of data protection law.
“In an increasingly connected world, where technology makes it easy and costless to infringe on another’s intellectual property or the confidential information of another person, an Anton Pillar order is an effective for foreign or non-resident owners to enforce the protection of their intellectual property”
What are the Legal Requirements for an Anton Piller Order in Nigeria?
In order to obtain this kind of order from a Nigerian court, one must demonstrate a strong case on the face of it. The damage to the plaintiff allegedly caused by the defendant’s alleged misconduct must be significant. There must also be convincing evidence that the defendant possesses incriminating documents or materials. There must be a real possibility that the defendant may destroy such material before the discovery process.
In addition to these criteria, the party seeking an Anton Piller order must provide the court with complete and honest disclosure of all relevant facts, even if they may be detrimental to their case. It is crucial to limit the scope of the order to what is strictly necessary and include safeguards for the defendant’s rights, such as protection of privileged information and the presence of an independent supervising solicitor.
If granted, a defendant must comply with the terms of an Anton Piller order. An example of the kind of orders contained in an Anton Piller order is an order directing a defendant to produce a certain document or to indicate the location of any such document. This may also contain an order preventing a defendant from leaving the jurisdiction. It is important to note that, failure to comply with an Anton Piller may expose a defendant to criminal contempt proceedings.
Anton Piller orders are recognised under Nigerian law and have been granted in a number of cases involving allegations of intellectual property infringement. Nigerian courts have also have the opportunity to expatiate on the jurisprudence in this area. It is not uncommon for defendants to challenge the scope of an Anton Pillar order. In one of such cases, (Akuma Industries vs. Ayman), the Court of Appeal ruled that the scope of the Anton Pillar order granted in that case, was excessive. The court cautioned that such orders are to be allowed in extreme cases having regard to the urgency of the situation and that such order must not be granted where it is possible that no appreciable harm will be done if the parties are given time to argue the merit of the case. Some notable cases include, Gallaher vs. British Amercan Tobacco and Voltic (Nig) Limited vs. Groupe Danone.
Final Analysis
Due to the intrusive nature of Anton Piller orders, a plaintiff may be held liable for damages if the order is deemed unwarranted, excessive, or improperly executed. Therefore, the use of such orders should be reserved for clear-cut cases and handled by experienced professionals.
