Absolute Lofts South West London Ltd v Artisan Home Improvements Ltd & Anor
Decision date: 14 September 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] EWHC 2608 (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 Artisan’s admitted copying of 21 Absolute Lofts photographs from the claimant’s website. The court awarded £300 as the user-principle (a realistic notional licence fee informed by the low-cost substitutes Artisan actually procured) and a further £6,000 under either s.97(2) CDPA or Article 13(1) of the Enforcement Directive to reflect unfair profits/non‑economic loss given the defendant’s knowledge. The claimant could rely on whichever head yielded the greater relief; the awards were not cumulative beyond those two sums.
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
Where assessing a notional licence under the user principle the court may take realistic alternatives actually available to or used by the infringer into account; low-cost substitutes procured by the infringer can inform the hypothetical licence fee. Further, Article 13(1) (and alternatively s.97(2) CDPA) permits an additional award reflecting unfair profits and non‑economic loss where appropriate; remedies under domestic law and the Directive may be compared and the court should apply the head that provides the greater appropriate compensation.
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 observed that the UK implementing regulation preserves national provisions more favourable to rightholders, suggesting s.97(2) is not plainly displaced by the Directive. It also indicated that Article 13(1)(a) and (b) should be read consistently so that the Article 13(1)(b) option can take account of unfair profits and non‑economic loss, and that deterrence is a relevant consideration for effective, proportionate and dissuasive remedies.