Football Association Premier League Ltd & Ors v QC Leisure & Ors

Football Association Premier League Ltd & Ors v QC Leisure & Ors

The defendants, by transmitting broadcast works via television screens and speakers to customers in public houses, communicated the works to the public within the meaning of s.20 CDPA, as interpreted in conformity with Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive. However, s.72(1)(c) CDPA provides a complete defence to infringement of film copyright by such showing or playing in public to audiences who have not paid for admission. The supply of decoder cards by QC Leisure and AV Station plc constituted authorisation of infringing acts. Declarations and injunctions are appropriate only to the extent of established infringements. An order for inquiry or account is appropriate but should be...

Parties
Claimant: Football Association Premier League Ltd; Claimant: NetMed Hellas SA; Claimant: Multichoice Hellas SA; Claimant: Union de Associations de Football; Claimant: British Sky Broadcasting Limited; Claimant: Setanta Sports SARL; Claimant: Group Canal Plus SA; Claimant: The Motion Picture Association; Defendant: QC Leisure; Defendant: David Richardson; Defendant: AV Station plc; Defendant: Malcolm Chamberlain; Defendant: Michael Madden; Defendant: Sanjay Raval; Defendant: David Greenslade; Defendant: SR Leisure Ltd; Defendant: Philip George Charles Houghton; Defendant: Derek Owen; Intervenor: Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property / Post Trial Judgment After Reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union
Outcome
Partial success for claimants; partial success for defendants
Legal Topics
Communication to the Public, Copyright Infringement, Authorisation of Infringement, Defences Under National Law, Interpretation of EU Directives, Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 Ec), Declaratory Relief, Injunctions, Account of Profits/inquiry as to Damages
Intellectual Property Copyright Law Competition Law Communication to the Public Copyright Infringement Authorisation of Infringement Defences Under National Law Interpretation of EU Directives +4 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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Football Association Premier League Ltd

Claimant

NetMed Hellas SA

Claimant

Multichoice Hellas SA

Claimant

Union de Associations de Football

Claimant

British Sky Broadcasting Limited

Claimant

Setanta Sports SARL

Claimant

Group Canal Plus SA

Claimant

The Motion Picture Association

Claimant

QC Leisure

Defendant

David Richardson

Defendant

AV Station plc

Defendant

Malcolm Chamberlain

Defendant

Michael Madden

Defendant

Sanjay Raval

Defendant

David Greenslade

Defendant

SR Leisure Ltd

Defendant

Philip George Charles Houghton

Defendant

Derek Owen

Defendant

Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property / Post Trial Judgment After Reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants communicated copyright works to the public contrary to s.20 CDPA and whether s.72 CDPA provides a defence
  2. 2 Whether QC Leisure and AV Station plc authorised infringing acts
  3. 3 Which works were screened or played by the Madden defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants, by transmitting broadcast works via television screens and speakers to customers in public houses, communicated the works to the public within the meaning of s.20 CDPA, as interpreted in conformity with Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive. However, s.72(1)(c) CDPA provides a complete defence to infringement of film copyright by such showing or playing in public to audiences who have not paid for admission. The supply of decoder cards by QC Leisure and AV Station plc constituted authorisation of infringing acts. Declarations and injunctions are appropriate only to the extent of established infringements. An order for inquiry or account is appropriate but should be...

Court Disposition

Partial success for claimants; partial success for defendants

Orders

  • Declaration of copyright infringement limited to specific works and acts established against each defendant
  • Declaration that relevant contractual obligations restricting decoder card supply were void under Article 81 EC/Article 101 TFEU to the extent specified, without prejudice to FAPL's copyright rights