Madine (t/a Nico) & Anor v Phillips (t/a Leanne Alexandra) & ors
Decision date: 13 December 2017
Neutral citation: [2017] EWHC 3268 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This case concerned claims by dress designer Thelma Madine that former employee Leanne Phillips (trading as Leanne Alexandra) and others infringed her unregistered UK design rights in two wedding-dress designs (the Fan Dress and Chenise sketches) and an associated bodice crystal pattern. The court held that design right subsisted in the Fan Dress and the Chenise sketches (including the bodice), that the Defendant's Dress and a Crystal Figurine were made exactly or substantially to those designs and thus infringed, that Leanne authorised manufacture and sale of the figurines, and that Pauline Phillips was not proved to have copied or to be jointly liable. Remedies and quantum were reserved for further hearing.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
From the judgment: unregistered UK design right can subsist in the design of part of an article and protect the whole or a part of a design (not merely isolated features), and proof of copying supported by evidence of access and substantial similarity can establish infringement where the allegedly infringing article is made exactly or substantially to the protected design; authorisation of third-party manufacture may be found where the putative authoriser supplies designs/photographs and exercises contractual control or consultation aimed at producing faithful reproductions.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment includes obiter observations that witness memory in commercial litigation is often unreliable and that judges should place significant weight on documentary evidence and inferences; it also notes that minor, non-pleaded differences in small details may be insignificant when assessing substantial similarity from the perspective of the intended customer.