Bodo Sperlein Ltd v Sabichi Ltd & Anor
Decision date: 8 May 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] EWHC 1242 (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 Bodo Sperlein Ltd's claim that Sabichi copied its Red Berry tableware design when Sabichi produced and sold a Red Blossom range. The court found that Sabichi's Red Blossom designs (as sent to the manufacturer in 2008) were indirect copies of BSL's Red Berry work, that the copying was of a substantial part, and that Sabichi infringed BSL's copyright by importation and sale. The court ordered an account of profits, assessing recoverable profits at £31,703.01 and awarding interest.
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
The decision rests on (1) that striking similarities — including an identical shade of colour and other design correspondences — can permit a strong prima facie inference of copying requiring compelling independent-design evidence to rebut, and (2) where copying involved altered-copying chains, the proper comparison for substantial-part assessment is between the claimant’s original work and the defendant’s final design actually exploited. These principles guided the finding of indirect copying and substantial part infringement.
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 contains observations on witness credibility and evidential weight — for example, that witness demeanour and tendencies to overstate can affect findings on opportunity and motive to copy — and that colour similarity may be especially probative where a defendant later amended designs and chose a matching colour. The court also commented on the exercise of equitable discretion over accounts of profits, noting that proven copying undermines an “entirely innocent” defence.