Joyce Carole Becker-Douglas v Bonnier Books UK Group Holdings Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 77 (Ch)
Tangle Inc v One For Fun Limited & Ors
10 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 217 (Ch)
High Court
A toy company sued another company and its bosses for copying their toy. The court threw out the case against two bosses because there wasn't enough evidence they were involved. The case against the third boss is on hold until the court decides if the company actually copied the toy.
Key Facts
- •Tangle Inc. (Claimant) sued One For Fun Ltd and three of its directors (Defendants) for copyright infringement.
- •The infringement relates to the 'Jumbly' toy, allegedly copying the Claimant's 'Tangle' toy.
- •The claim against the directors (Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants) was based on joint tortfeasance.
- •The First Defendant is a substantial company with significant turnover.
- •The Defendants argued that the claim against the directors should be struck out.
- •The Claimant's case relied on the directors' knowledge, control, and involvement in the design and/or sale of the Jumbly toy.
Legal Principles
Joint tortfeasance liability requires assistance in the commission of a tort by another, pursuant to a common design, to do an act which is, or turns out to be, tortious.
Fish & Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd UK [2015] UKSC 10
A director will not be liable as a joint tortfeasor if they only carry out their constitutional role in company governance. Liability arises if their involvement goes beyond this constitutional role.
Lifestyle Equities CV v Ahmed [2021] EWCA Civ 675
In intellectual property cases, joint tortfeasance liability may arise where an individual intends, procures, and shares a common design for the infringement to take place.
C.B.S. Songs Ltd v. Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc [1988] AC 1013 and Unilever Plc v. Gillette (U.K.) Limited [1989] R.P.C. 583
Outcomes
Claims against the Third and Fourth Defendants struck out.
Insufficient evidence to establish joint tortfeasance; their involvement amounted to no more than being aware of the situation.
Claim against the Second Defendant stayed until the damages enquiry.
While the pleadings and evidence were only just sufficient to establish a plausible claim of joint tortfeasance against the Second Defendant, given the Claimant's consent, the claim was stayed pending the outcome of the primary claim against the First Defendant.