Lambretta Clothing Company Ltd v Teddy Smith (UK) Ltd & Anor

Lambretta Clothing Company Ltd v Teddy Smith (UK) Ltd & Anor

UDR cannot subsist in the mere choice of colourways for a standard tracktop as this constitutes surface decoration, which is expressly excluded from protection under s.213(3)(c). Even if not, the design was commonplace in the relevant design field. Section 51 bars any claim for artistic copyright infringement in this context. The appeal is dismissed and the finding of no liability is upheld.

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 / Judgment on Appeal From Chancery Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unregistered Design Right (udr), Artistic Copyright, Surface Decoration Exclusion, Commonplace Design, Infringement, Section 51 Defence, Configuration Vs Shape, Costs
Intellectual Property Copyright Law Design Law Unregistered Design Right (udr) Artistic Copyright Surface Decoration Exclusion Commonplace Design Infringement +3 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 7 Authorities cited 27 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 / Judgment on Appeal From Chancery Division

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

UDR cannot subsist in the mere choice of colourways for a standard tracktop as this constitutes surface decoration, which is expressly excluded from protection under s.213(3)(c). Even if not, the design was commonplace in the relevant design field. Section 51 bars any claim for artistic copyright infringement in this context. The appeal is dismissed and the finding of no liability is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No liability found against Teddy Smith (UK) Limited
  • No retrial ordered as UDR does not subsist and the design is commonplace