Lambretta Clothing Company Ltd v Teddy Smith (UK) Ltd & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 886 (15 July 2004)

Lambretta Clothing Company Ltd v Teddy Smith (UK) Ltd & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 886 (15 July 2004)

UDR cannot subsist in the mere choice of colourways for a standard garment as this constitutes surface decoration, which is expressly excluded by s.213(3)(c) CDPA 1988. Even if not excluded, the design was commonplace in the relevant design field. Section 51 CDPA 1988 provides a defence to artistic copyright infringement in this context. The finding of copying by Teddy Smith was unsafe due to late-raised evidence and interpretation issues, and would have required a retrial if material. The appeal is dismissed and the original finding of no liability is upheld.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 886
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Lambretta Clothing Company Limited; Defendant/respondent: Teddy Smith (UK) Limited; Defendant/respondent: Next Retail PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; original finding of no liability upheld.
Legal Topics
Unregistered Design Right (udr), Artistic Copyright, Surface Decoration Exclusion, Commonplace Design, Section 51 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Copying and Inference, Costs
Intellectual Property Copyright Law Design Law Unregistered Design Right (udr) Artistic Copyright Surface Decoration Exclusion Commonplace Design Section 51 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lambretta Clothing Company Limited

Claimant/appellant

Teddy Smith (UK) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Next Retail PLC

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether UDR can subsist in a juxtaposition of colourways as an aspect of shape or configuration under s.213(2) CDPA 1988
  2. 2 Whether the colourways constitute 'surface decoration' under s.213(3)(c) CDPA 1988
  3. 3 Whether s.51 CDPA 1988 provides a defence to infringement of artistic copyright

Ratio Decidendi

UDR cannot subsist in the mere choice of colourways for a standard garment as this constitutes surface decoration, which is expressly excluded by s.213(3)(c) CDPA 1988. Even if not excluded, the design was commonplace in the relevant design field. Section 51 CDPA 1988 provides a defence to artistic copyright infringement in this context. The finding of copying by Teddy Smith was unsafe due to late-raised evidence and interpretation issues, and would have required a retrial if material. The appeal is dismissed and the original finding of no liability is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; original finding of no liability upheld.