WaterRower (UK) Limited v Liking Limited (T/A Topiom)

Decision date: 5 August 2022

Neutral citation: [2022] EWHC 2084 (IPEC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 was a strike-out/summary-judgment application by the defendant to dismiss the claimant’s claim that the WaterRower rowing machine is a "work of artistic craftsmanship" under s.4(1) CDPA. The court refused the applications, holding that the claimant has real prospects of proving the WaterRower is such a work and that material factual issues (including creator intention and recognition by design institutions) remain for trial. No final decision was reached on whether the WaterRower is a work of artistic craftsmanship.

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: high

A strike-out or summary-judgment application should be refused where, on the pleaded facts and evidence, there are real prospects of success and material factual issues remain to be tried; technical or functional constraints do not automatically preclude a finding of artistic craftsmanship where evidence indicates the author exercised free, creative choices reflecting personality.

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 indicates (obiter) that the creator’s intention is relevant to whether an item is "artistic" and that recognition by reputable design institutions and publications is probative on artistic quality. It also notes that tensions between prior UK authority and CJEU jurisprudence (e.g. Hensher v Cofemel/Brompton issues) need not be resolved on strike-out and may be for trial or higher courts.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML