Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd
Whether copying amounts to the reproduction of a substantial part of a work depends on the quality, not the quantity, of what was taken, and the court looks at what was copied from the claimant's work.
Facts
Designers Guild produced a fabric design called Ixia, consisting of stripes with scattered flowers and leaves, painted in an impressionistic style. Russell Williams produced a design called Marguerite, which had a similar combination of stripes and flowers. The trial judge found that Russell Williams had copied the Ixia design, and that it had copied a substantial part of it. The Court of Appeal reversed the finding of substantiality, by comparing the two designs side by side.
Legal principle
The House of Lords restored the trial judge's decision. Lord Hoffmann said that, once copying is established, the question of whether a substantial part has been taken depends on the importance of what was copied to the claimant's work, not on whether the defendant's work looks similar overall. The judge had found that the defendant had copied the combination of stripes and flowers and the technique by which they were painted, which was an important part of the Ixia design. Lord Millett said that the court must first identify the features which the defendant has copied, and then ask whether they form a substantial part of the claimant's work.
Related cases on copyright: infringement and defences
- Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1142, [2002] Ch 149
- Baigent v Random House Group Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 247
- Deckmyn v Vandersteen Case C-201/13, EU:C:2014:2132
- Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] Ch 587
- GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV Case C-160/15, EU:C:2016:644
- Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84
- Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland [2001] Ch 143
- LB (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd [1979] RPC 551
Studying intellectual property law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
