Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC [2478] (IPEC)
Background:
- The initial claims included infringement of registered designs and passing off. However, on 5 April 2023, the defendant was granted summary judgement on these claims. Subsequently, the claimant amended the claim to focus on copyright infringement, asserting that the products are “works of artistic craftsmanship” under Section 4(1)(c) of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA).
Key Issues:
- Whether the claimant’s products qualify as works of artistic craftsmanship, thereby warranting copyright protection.
- Whether the claimant holds ownership of the copyright in these products.
Evidence Presented:
- For the Claimant: Ms. Fletcher, the founder and managing director, testified about her design process, emphasising her role in creating aesthetically appealing, well-fitting, high-visibility clothing tailored for equestrian use. She highlighted specific features added in 2019 and 2020 to the products, such as reflective piping, improved materials, and design adjustments.
- For the defendant, Mr. John Felton, Managing Director, acknowledged that if copyright subsisted in the products, their sale would constitute infringement. However, he contended that the products did not meet the criteria for works of artistic craftsmanship.
Legal Considerations:
- Under Section 4(1) of the CDPA, an “artistic work” includes a “work of artistic craftsmanship.”
- The court referenced the case Response Clothing Limited v. The Edinburgh Woollen Mill Limited [2020] EWHC 148, where the definition of “work of artistic craftsmanship” was examined. The court considered whether the creator was both a craftsman, producing items skilfully with pride, and an artist, using creative ability to produce something with aesthetic appeal.
Court’s Analysis:
- Waistcoat: The court found that features like reflective piping and improved materials were functional enhancements aimed at safety and comfort, not artistic expressions. The design choices were dictated by practical considerations, such as ensuring the waistcoat was close-fitting to prevent flapping during riding.
- Hat Band and Neck Band: Similarly, additions like LED lights and design adjustments were deemed practical solutions to enhance visibility and fit, lacking the necessary artistic creativity.
The court concluded that the products did not qualify as works of artistic craftsmanship under the CDPA, as the design elements were primarily functional and did not reflect the author’s personal creative expression.
Ownership Considerations: Given the finding that the products did not meet the criteria for artistic craftsmanship, the court did not need to determine the issue of copyright ownership. However, it noted that the claimant had not sufficiently established ownership, as some design work occurred before the company’s formation, and there was collaboration with manufacturers, potentially affecting rights ownership.
Conclusion: The claim was dismissed on the grounds that the products did not qualify as works of artistic craftsmanship under the CDPA. Additionally, the claimant failed to establish clear ownership of any potential rights.
Info@lawdit.co.uk
