Argumentative essay on Intellectual property. Needs to be 12 pages. Past rulings by the CJEU and The High Court of England and Wales, will be useful in analyzing the soundness of this injunction. According to the EU’s E-commerce Directive, there is need for a balance to be struck in order to create a system that exempts intermediaries such as the information society service provider who function as conduits of information and do not engage in monitoring or editing of content1. In the case project, balance is not struck. The Directive clearly states that an intermediary that expeditiously removes access to illegal content once they have received notice of the infringement will not be held liable. Additionally, Article 12.1 of the Directive states that a service provider cannot be held liable for content transmitted through its network if the provider does not start the transmission, does not choose the receiver of the content, and does not alter the content. The above injunction against the Information Society Services Provider is blanket in nature, which deviates from the E-commerce detective.The E- Commerce Directive rules out the creation of monitoring obligations for intermediaries. According to article 15, limitation of liability should not be interpreted as giving any obligation. In the above case, the injunction is giving an obligation to the provider. This implies that providers of online material will not be liable for illegal material that has been availed in their networks by its clients if the provider is a mere channel and has processes in place to take out the material quickly. and they will not be required to supervise activity in advance2. This principle of limitation of liability for internet service providers is applicable in many jurisdictions. Despite the present legislation, the debate concerning intermediary liability continues with industry and regulators raising the issue of liability.In analyzing this