Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 meaning

In a keenly awaited ruling, the High Court decided that WaterRower (UK) Ltd could not press infringement actions against competing rowing machine manufacturer Liking Ltd, as it lacked any copyright in its own design in this dispute. The court found that the prototype WaterRower devised by John Duke might qualify as an original work for the purposes of EU law, yet it did not amount to a work of ‘artistic craftsmanship’ within the meaning of the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Deputy Judge Campbell Forsyth stated that Mr Duke applied his expertise to build the prototype and that it possesses visual appeal, but concluded that, in doing so, he did not act with the attributes of an artist craftsman. Advisers from Gunnercooke, who represented Liking in the dispute, hailed the decision as ‘one of the most important developments in the IP industry this year’. Representatives of WaterRower did not promptly respond to a request for comment on 11 November 2024. WaterRower initially sued...

In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Patents Trade marks/passing off Designs General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&A Useful information IP Highlights 2024/2025 Copyright & associated rights Testing the outer limits of artistic copyright (WaterRower v Liking) WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (t/a Topiom) [2024] EWHC 2806 (IPEC) centred on whether a rowing machine, the WaterRower, qualified for protection as a work of artistic craftsmanship under section 4(1)(c) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The matter compelled the court to address a clash between the UK and EU criteria for this category. While earlier rulings had managed to sidestep that divergence, it could not be avoided here. Unable to bridge the divide, the judge determined the WaterRower was not a work of artistic craftsmanship under UK law, although it would have secured protection applying EU law....

Original news Kohler Mira Ltd v Bristan Group Ltd [2014] EWHC 1931 (IPEC), [2014] All ER (D) 130 (Jun). After the Patent County Court (as it then was) found that the defendant had infringed the claimant’s UK unregistered design rights, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that the claimant should receive a sum equivalent to a royalty of 6.7% of the price at which the defendant sold the infringing shower units to its customers. Moreover, exercising its discretion with reference to policy considerations, the court ruled that the defendant could not invoke the defence of innocence under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 233(1), when it was advanced for the first time during the damages inquiry. Briefly, what was the background to this judgment? This ruling concerns a damages inquiry following last year’s liability decision—Kohler Mira Ltd v Bristan Group Ltd [2013] EWPCC 2, [2013] All ER (D) 213 (Jan). The inquiry was conducted by HHJ Hacon on 29 April 2014 in the IPEC. The...

What design protection is available in the UK? Design rights safeguard the shape, configuration or appearance of the whole or any part of a product or article, rather than its functional features. The purpose of design law is to specifically deter others from making products that closely follow the design or otherwise produce the very same overall impression as the original design. The design rights currently available in the UK are as follows: namely UK registered designs (including re-registered designs and re-registered international designs) UK unregistered design right (also known as design right) Supplementary unregistered design right (SUD) Each of these rights differs in qualifying criteria, scope and the duration of protection. For more information, see Practice Note: Comparison tables for design protection available in the UK. Before Brexit, the UK designs regime was substantially harmonised with the EU regime then. The Designs Directive (Directive 98/71/EC) harmonised the requirements for national registered design protection across the EU. It was...

Defending a claim of copyright infringement In most copyright infringement cases, a defendant will first challenge the claimant’s position on copyright itself, contending either that no copyright exists in the work identified, or that any subsisting copyright is not owned by the claimant (and sometimes both). The next step is often to assert that, even assuming copyright does subsist, there has been no infringement. This may include arguing that the original work and the accused material lack sufficient similarity, or adducing evidence that the disputed work was created independently, i.e. that no copying occurred. Finally, there are specific statutory carve-outs to infringement, predominantly set out in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988). These are referred to as permitted acts. The range of permitted acts applying to copyright is extensive, with several also relevant to database right. Where other legal claims arise, such as breach of confidence, the permitted acts defence will not cover those causes of action. Permitted acts can be invoked in relation to...

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) grants the copyright holder in the UK the sole authority to undertake a variety of acts in relation to any copyright work. Where those specified acts in the CDPA 1988 are carried out by someone other than the owner, without consent, this may amount to an infringement of the owner’s exclusive rights. Status of EU copyright law in the UK As of 31 January 2020, the UK ceased to be a Member State of the EU. In line with the Withdrawal Agreement, an 11‑month transition or implementation period followed, ending on 31 December 2020 (IP completion day), during which EU law continued to apply across the UK. Thereafter, EU legislation made or brought into force after that date is not binding on the UK. For pre‑existing measures, the legal position immediately before IP completion day was maintained for legal continuity by taking a snapshot of the EU rules then applicable in the UK and, for the most part, incorporating...

Case No. [ insert number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD) [ INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT ] Between [ insert full name of claimant ] (the Claimant) and [ insert full name of defendant ] (the Defendant) PARTICULARS OF CLAIM The Claimant The Claimant has, at all material times, been and remains [ insert details of claimant ]. The Claimant’s principal business activity is [ insert type of business carried out ]. In particular, the Claimant [ insert brief description of claimant’s business relating to the copyright work or works ]. The Claimant has, throughout all material times, owned and continues to own the copyright in the [ insert details of relevant work ] (the Work). Pursuant to section 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, copyright subsists in the Work as a [ insert type of copyright work, for example...

Alleged infringer’s name and address [ Date ] Dear [ insert organisation name ] [ Insert name and description of copyright works ] We act for [ name of client ] of [ address ]. We write concerning your conduct and activities. [ Name of client ] [ Name of client ] operates in [ describe: the industry of operation, what the copyright owner does; who in the company produces the copyright works, if relevant how they are employed and what the copyright work is. Define or give the name of the copyright work ]. [ Insert name of client ] is the [ owner OR assignee OR exclusive licensee ] of copyright in [ Name and description of copyright works ] (the Work [ s ]), and a copy is [ enclosed for your attention OR available for inspection on request at our offices ]. Pursuant to section 11(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988), our client owns...

Introduction The purpose of this copyright policy is to guide employees and other personnel on copyright as a right. It also: sets out guidelines and procedures for obtaining permission to use company and third‑party works; provides a framework for reporting misuse of copyright works. This policy supplies practical advice and procedures on copyright matters. It is not a substitute for legal advice, so obtain proper legal guidance when needed. The copyright officer, [ Name ], may assist with any questions; contact [ Name ] at [ telephone number or email address ]. What is copyright? Copyright recognises the intellectual creation invested by an author in producing a work. Where copyright subsists in a work, the owner holds exclusive rights to undertake specified acts in relation to that work. Acts such as copying, as defined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, carried out by anyone other than the owner without permission, may infringe those exclusive rights...