Response Clothing Ltd v The Edinburgh Woollen Mill Ltd (Rev 1)
Decision date: 29 January 2020
Neutral citation: [2020] EWHC 148 (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 whether Response's 2009 "Wave Fabric" attracted copyright and whether fabrics later supplied to The Edinburgh Woollen Mill (EWM) by Visage, Cingo and Bengal Knittex copied it. The court held the Wave Fabric was not a "graphic work" but was a work of artistic craftsmanship, original and owned by Response (by assignment). The Visage, Cingo and Bengal Knittex fabrics were infringing copies; EWM was liable for secondary infringement in relation to those fabrics, though not primarily liable for sales of Visage-made tops because Visage had already issued those copies to the public by sale to EWM.
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 textile pattern produced by machine can be a "work of artistic craftsmanship" if it embodies skill, pride in workmanship and aesthetic qualities; such a work is original where it reflects the author's own intellectual creation (free and creative choices), and in a supply chain the sale that transfers to an independent purchaser the right to dispose and realise economic value can amount to "issue to the public" for distribution-right purposes.
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 suggests the statutory list of "graphic work" is not infinitely elastic and points to works made by marks on a substrate as typical examples, implying fabrics are unlikely to qualify as graphic works. It also indicates that expert evidence and commercial aesthetic appeal are admissible in assessing "artistic craftsmanship" and that mass or machine production does not preclude that category. The court further refers to EU law requiring national originality tests to reflect the author's own intellectual creation.