Merlet & Anor v Mothercare Public Ltd [1985] EWCA Civ 19 (04 November 1985)

Merlet & Anor v Mothercare Public Ltd [1985] EWCA Civ 19 (04 November 1985)

Although copyright subsisted in the plaintiffs' drawings, the defendant's product did not appear to a non-expert to be a reproduction of the drawings within the meaning of section 9(8) of the Copyright Act 1956. The statutory defence applied, and thus there was no actionable infringement.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1985] EWCA Civ 19
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Madame Merlet; Appellant/plaintiff: UK company (second plaintiff); Respondent/defendant: Defendant (substantial retailer of products for babies and young children)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 1985
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Artistic Works, Originality, Statutory Defence Under S.9(8) Copyright Act 1956
Intellectual Property Copyright Copyright Infringement Artistic Works Originality Statutory Defence Under S.9(8) Copyright Act 1956

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madame Merlet

Appellant/plaintiff

UK company (second plaintiff)

Appellant/plaintiff

Defendant (substantial retailer of products for babies and young children)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant infringed copyright in the plaintiffs' drawings (P2 and P7) under the Copyright Act 1956
  2. 2 Whether the defendant could rely on the statutory defence under section 9(8) of the Copyright Act 1956

Ratio Decidendi

Although copyright subsisted in the plaintiffs' drawings, the defendant's product did not appear to a non-expert to be a reproduction of the drawings within the meaning of section 9(8) of the Copyright Act 1956. The statutory defence applied, and thus there was no actionable infringement.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Application by appellants for leave to appeal refused.