Atelier Eighty Two Ltd v Kilnworx Climbing Centre CIC & Ors
Decision date: 30 July 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] EWHC 2291 (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 ownership of copyright in logos created in August 2011 by a designer (Purple Penguin/Rik Kirk) for Kilnworx. The court found there was an oral commission with an implied term that Kilnworx should own the copyrights; Purple Penguin therefore held the legal title on trust for Kilnworx and Atelier’s later assignment took the legal title subject to Kilnworx’s equitable interest. Kilnworx was entitled to an assignment from Atelier and the defendants were not held liable for infringement in respect of the logos.
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
When a designer is commissioned to create a logo for a client, business efficacy will ordinarily imply a term that the commissioning client should have the right to prevent others using the logo — typically by ownership or a perpetual exclusive licence. Payment by a third party does not of itself defeat that implied intention where the parties contemplated reimbursement and the commissioning client was the intended user; in such circumstances the legal owner may hold the copyright on trust for the commissioning client.
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 noted that post-event letters drafted to assist one party (for example by the designer at that party’s request) may be given little or no weight if the author does not give evidence and the document appears prepared to assist. It also observed that it would be commercially unusual and risky for a client to permit a designer to retain rights permitting sale to a competitor, so very clear evidence would be required to establish such an arrangement.