Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor

Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor

The helmets and armour were not sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship under the 1988 Act; they were utilitarian props, not created for visual appeal as such. Section 51 applied, so making articles to the design did not infringe copyright. Section 52 also applied due to industrial exploitation and lapse of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Lucasfilm Limited; Claimant: Star Wars Productions Limited; Claimant: Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Limited; Defendant: Andrew Ainsworth; Defendant: Shepperton Design Studios Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property/copyright Infringement and Passing Off / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim for infringement of US copyright succeeds; all other claims and counterclaims fail.
Legal Topics
Copyright Subsistence and Infringement, Design Documents and Models, Passing Off, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Confidential Information, Works of Artistic Craftsmanship, Sculpture Under Copyright Law, Jurisdiction Over Foreign Copyright Claims
Intellectual Property Copyright Law Contract Law Tort (passing Off) Private International Law Copyright Subsistence and Infringement Design Documents and Models Passing Off +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucasfilm Limited

Claimant

Star Wars Productions Limited

Claimant

Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Limited

Claimant

Andrew Ainsworth

Defendant

Shepperton Design Studios Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property/copyright Infringement and Passing Off / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the helmets and armour are 'sculptures' or 'works of artistic craftsmanship' under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether Mr Ainsworth infringed copyright in the claimants' drawings by making and selling replicas
  3. 3 Whether section 51 or 52 of the 1988 Act provides a defence to Mr Ainsworth

Ratio Decidendi

The helmets and armour were not sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship under the 1988 Act; they were utilitarian props, not created for visual appeal as such. Section 51 applied, so making articles to the design did not infringe copyright. Section 52 also applied due to industrial exploitation and lapse of time. The US judgment was not enforceable in England as Mr Ainsworth was not present or did not submit to US jurisdiction. However, the claim for infringement of US copyright was justiciable and succeeded. The passing off and contractual/confidence claims failed. Mr Ainsworth's counterclaim for copyright failed.

Court Disposition

Claim for infringement of US copyright succeeds; all other claims and counterclaims fail.

Orders

  • Claimants entitled to relief for infringement of US copyright (quantum and form of relief to be determined at further hearing)
  • All other claims and counterclaims dismissed