Mars One: Should I Stay or Should I Go?

EDIT: For a  more thorough analysis of the potential legal implications of the mission, I have uploaded a paper on SSRN (15 pages).

The latest trend on crowdfunding website Indiegogo seems to be that of Mars One. Mars One is a project initiated by Bas Lansdorp and Arno Wielders, both Chief Officers of a company called Interplanetary Media Group BV (IMG), based in the Netherlands. IMG is the subsidiary of Stichting Mars One, a non-profit foundation.

The mission’s aim is no other than to colonise planet Mars in the very near future; 2024 to be exact. The plans include life support units that generate energy, water and breathable air. Supply units with food and other commodities, inflatable living units, rovers and other machinery. And that seems to be as far as the provision goes. A number of satellites will be put in Martian orbit to record the lives of the colony members, and to transmit video so Earth can watch through a television link.

All this sounds swell … but is it really that simple?

CSI MANUFACTURING v DUNN & BRADSTREET: Coleman v MGN round II

Mr Coleman was unfortunate enough to have his picture publicized next to an article about hooligans and drunkards by the Daily Mirror in 2003. That picture was also allegedly publicized in the internet edition of the said distribution, open to the worldwide public by subscription – but did that actually result in absolute geographical restriction? (read below). Mr Coleman claimed damages for defamation, damages for breach of contract, negligence, breach of duty and breach of statutory duty. 9 years later, the Supreme Court could not be furnished with evidence of the internet publication by the plaintiff (and obviously hard to ascertain the defendant kept an archive of publications so old for the sake of discovery), and therefore, since both the defendant and the paper’s audience were restricted to the UK, it lacked jurisdiction to decide in favour of the plaintiff.

Passing Off: Little Pots of Doom

Update 14/12/2013: The High Court judgment disclosing Brennan Bakeries used another packaging/supplying company (Doyle’s Quality Products) has now been published here, and can be discussed openly hereafter.

Everybody should be acquainted with the infamous, by now, bread wars (McCambridge v Brennan (2011), affirmed in the SC), where Brennan Bakeries’ stoneground bread was held capable of passing off as that of McCambridge, against the Consumer Protection Act, 2007. In the said case the products were seemingly the same, same type of bread, same shape… and so was the packaging.

S71 (2) of the 2007 Act gives any person the right to come forth and put the blame on a product, if they feel they have been deceived. That alone should make producers very cautious as to the looks of their packaging; packaging companies should also be careful though, not to design similar packaging for clients that fall within the same production group. And the question has arisen, if someone has a claim in damages, taking all the facts into account, should packaging companies share the liability?