Reverting to Gilfo~d's case, we therefore find it difficult to conclude that the injunction made against the company was granted otherwise than on the basis that it was regarded by the court as just and convenient to do so. I#'the i~ju►~ction hid been gruff eti against IF'Ir Horne alone, it would have been iFi floe convei3tion~~I form aes[raini.n~ l~im F3'011l doing the prohibited acts by himself, his szrvaFits ai• agents or otheT~vise howsoever, as~d s~~ch an order would in ~racticz have restr~ii~ed tl~e eontinaed commissia~l of breaches via the actions of the con~- p~y, to which know.Iedge of the injunction and of a~~y continuing infringements by Ms~ Horne u~oiiid have been attributed.