Evans v John Lewis Plc & Anor [2023] EWHC 766 (IPEC) (03 April 2023)

Evans v John Lewis Plc & Anor [2023] EWHC 766 (IPEC) (03 April 2023)

The claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendants or their creative teams had access to or copied any protected elements of the claimant's book prior to the creation and release of the 2019 Advert and 'Excitable Edgar'. The evidence established that the concept and key features of the defendants' works were independently developed before the claimant's book was published. Similarities were attributable to common themes in children's literature and not to copying. Without access, there can be no copyright infringement.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 766 (IPEC)
Parties
Claimant: Fay Evans; First Defendant: John Lewis PLC; Second Defendant: DBB UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement Claim and Counterclaim for Non Infringement Declaration / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed. Counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement and publicity order granted.
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Originality, Access and Copying, Literary and Artistic Works, Declaratory Relief
Intellectual Property Copyright Law Copyright Infringement Originality Access and Copying Literary and Artistic Works Declaratory Relief

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fay Evans

Claimant

John Lewis PLC

First Defendant

DBB UK Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright Infringement Claim and Counterclaim for Non Infringement Declaration / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants copied elements of the claimant's book 'Fred the Fire-sneezing Dragon' in the 2019 John Lewis Christmas Advert and the book 'Excitable Edgar'
  2. 2 Whether the similarities between the works are due to copying or independent creation
  3. 3 Whether the elements alleged to be copied are protected expressions of intellectual creation

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendants or their creative teams had access to or copied any protected elements of the claimant's book prior to the creation and release of the 2019 Advert and 'Excitable Edgar'. The evidence established that the concept and key features of the defendants' works were independently developed before the claimant's book was published. Similarities were attributable to common themes in children's literature and not to copying. Without access, there can be no copyright infringement.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed. Counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement and publicity order granted.

Orders

  • Declaration of non-infringement in favour of the defendants
  • Order requiring the claimant to publicise the judgment on her website