WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (T/A Topiom) [2022] EWHC 2084 (IPEC) (05 August 2022)

The claim that the WaterRower is a work of artistic craftsmanship is not obviously ill-founded or bound to fail. There is evidence of artistic intention, craftsmanship, and recognition. The claim has real prospects of success under both UK and EU law. The application to strike out or for summary judgment is rejected.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2022] EWHC 2084 (IPEC)
Parties: Claimant: WaterRower (UK) Limited; Defendant: Liking Limited (T/A Topiom)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 05 August 2022
Procedural Posture: Copyright Infringement / Strike Out/summary Judgment Application
Outcome: Application to strike out and for summary judgment rejected.
Legal Topics: Works of Artistic Craftsmanship, Copyright Subsistence, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications

Intellectual Property Copyright Works of Artistic Craftsmanship Copyright Subsistence Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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 20 Party arguments 2

Parties

WaterRower (UK) Limited

Claimant

Liking Limited (T/A Topiom)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Legal Issues

1 Whether the WaterRower rowing machine is a 'work of artistic craftsmanship' under section 4(1)(c) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988
2 Whether the claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted on the basis that the WaterRower is not a work of artistic craftsmanship

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to strike out and for summary judgment rejected.

Orders

Claim proceeds to trial.
Application for declaration of non-subsistence of copyright rejected.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.