Shazam Production Ltd v Only Fools The Dining Experience Ltd & Ors.

Decision date: 8 June 2022

Neutral citation: [2022] EWHC 1379 (IPEC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

Shazam Production Ltd sued Only Fools The Dining Experience Ltd and others for copying elements of the BBC sitcom Only Fools and Horses in an interactive dining show. The court held that individual OFAH episode scripts are dramatic works, that the character Del Boy is a protectable literary work, and that the defendants copied a substantial part of OFAH into the September 2019 OFDE script, infringing copyright; Shazam also succeeded in passing off. The defendants' s.30A parody/pastiche/fair dealing defence failed.

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

The judgment applies a two‑stage originality/identifiability test for character protection: a character qualifies as a copyright work if it is the author's own intellectual creation and its expressed features are objectively identifiable with sufficient precision (application of Cofemel). It also confirms that scripts intended primarily for performance are dramatic works and that substantiality is qualitative—distinctive combinations of features (character traits, catchphrases, backstory), even where not wholly verbatim, can amount to copying a substantial part.

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 includes comparative references to foreign authorities (e.g. German and US cases) on character protection and remarks that the concept of pastiche should be confined to imitation of style or assemblage/medley of works rather than a broad fair‑use escape; these observations are explanatory rather than central to the holdings.