WaterRower (UK) Limited v Liking Limited (t/a Topiom)
Decision date: 11 November 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] EWHC 2806 (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
WaterRower sued Liking (Topiom) for copyright in a series of water-resistance rowing machines, relying on an earlier Prototype. The court held the Prototype met EU/InfoSoc originality but none of the claimed Works (including the Prototype) qualified as "works of artistic craftsmanship" under CDPA s.4(1)(c), so copyright did not subsist and WaterRower's claim was dismissed; Liking's counterclaim for a declaratory judgment was refused as unnecessary. The Prototype was treated as adequately pleaded or sufficiently ventilated in evidence.
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
Where EU/InfoSoc originality is engaged it must be considered first; only if a work is original under the InfoSoc test does one proceed to consider whether it is a "work of artistic craftsmanship" under CDPA s.4(1)(c). The statutory phrase "work of artistic craftsmanship" retains an independent meaning beyond InfoSoc originality (per Hensher and related authorities) and can exclude items that are original under the InfoSoc test.
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 that expert, public and contextual evidence can be used in a multi‑factorial assessment of s.4(1)(c), that mass production or commercial purpose do not automatically negate artistic‑craftsmanship status, and that functional constraints reduce scope for artistic expression; it also suggests that where pleadings are imprecise, trial conduct and evidence may justify determination of issues not tightly pleaded.