Forbes v Strathclyde Partnership for Transport & Anor [2011] ScotCS CSOH_47 (04 March 2011)
The pursuer's pleadings fail to distinguish between the idea and its expression, lack adequate specification of alleged copying, and do not establish an arguable inference of copyright infringement. The case is fundamentally irrelevant and must be dismissed.
- Citation
- [2011] ScotCS CSOH_47
- Parties
- Pursuer: William Forbes; Defenders: Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and Another
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 04 March 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Copyright Infringement / Procedure Roll Hearing, Judgment on Relevancy and Title to Sue
- Outcome
- Action dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Copyright, Title to Sue, Infringement, Specification of Pleadings
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
William Forbes
Pursuer
Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and Another
Defenders
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement / Procedure Roll Hearing, Judgment on Relevancy and Title to Sue
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether pursuer has title to sue for copyright infringement
- 2 Whether pursuer's pleadings are sufficiently specified to establish copyright infringement
- 3 Whether the defenders copied the expression of the pursuer's work rather than merely the idea
Ratio Decidendi
The pursuer's pleadings fail to distinguish between the idea and its expression, lack adequate specification of alleged copying, and do not establish an arguable inference of copyright infringement. The case is fundamentally irrelevant and must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Action dismissed
Orders
- Action dismissed as irrelevant
- No separate decision on exclusion from probation of Article 27 averments
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment