Equisafety Limited v Woof Wear Limited
[2024] EWHC 2478 (IPEC)
WaterRower (UK) Limited v Liking Limited (t/a Topiom)
11 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2806 (IPEC)
High Court
A company sued another for copying its rowing machines. The court had to decide if the machines were artistic enough to be protected by copyright. It decided they weren't artistic enough, so the lawsuit was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •WaterRower (UK) Limited claimed copyright infringement against Liking Limited (t/a TOPIOM) for copying WaterRower rowing machines.
- •The key issue was whether WaterRower's machines were 'works of artistic craftsmanship' under s.4(1)(c) CDPA.
- •A dispute arose regarding the prototype's status as a pleaded work.
- •The case involved analysis of UK and EU copyright law, particularly the InfoSoc Directive and CJEU case law (Cofemel, Brompton).
- •Multiple WaterRower models (Series 1-4, Versions 1-8) were in dispute.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'work of artistic craftsmanship' under s.4(1)(c) CDPA.
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA)
Originality requirement under Article 2(a) of the InfoSoc Directive.
InfoSoc Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC)
Conformity of UK law with EU law (Marleasing principle).
Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA (C-106/89)
Cumulative protection of designs under design law and copyright law.
Article 17 of EU Directive 98/71/EC (Design Directive) and Article 96(2) of Designs Regulation
Interpretation of 'works' within the meaning of the InfoSoc Directive
Cofemel and Brompton decisions
Outcomes
The claim for copyright infringement was dismissed.
No copyright subsists in the WaterRower machines as works of artistic craftsmanship. Only the prototype was considered original under EU law but did not meet the higher artistic threshold of UK law.
The counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement was dismissed.
The declaration wouldn't serve a useful purpose, given the limited evidence of market uncertainty.