Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Law of luxury goods series: Kaldor v Lee Ann: is this a copy?

281 views

Published on

How are design rights and copyright used, in the fashion sector, to protect prints? What is the latest case law on this field?
Alexander Rozycki, Barrister, 4-5 Gray’s Inns Square

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

Law of luxury goods series: Kaldor v Lee Ann: is this a copy?

  1. 1.       Kaldor v Lee Ann How to prove copying     www.4-5.co.uk
  2. 2. Background  Facts                   •  C’s  claim  did  not  succeed  despite  the  very  close   similari5es  and  despite  the  fact  that  C’s  design  had   enabled  D  to  get  the  Marks  &  Spencer  order.   www.4-5.co.uk
  3. 3. Legal  Framework   •  Sec5on  16  of  the  Copyright  Designs  and  Patents  Act  1988  –  C   must  establish  that     i)  the  alleged  infringing  ar5cle  was  copied,  directly  or   indirectly,  from  the  copyright  work  and     ii)the  act  of  copying  was  done  in  rela5on  to  the  work  as  a   whole  or  any  substan5al  part  of  it.   •  Stoddard  Interna+onal  plc  v  William  Lomas  Carpets  Ltd   [2001]  FSR  44  –     •  Direct  evidence  of  copying  is  rare  –  designers  rarely  have   “spies  at  their  side.”     •  Copying  is  proven  by  dint  of  an  inference  drawn  from   objec5ve  similari5es  between  designs.   •  Onus  then  shiTs  to  D  to  sa5sfactorily  explain  the  similari5es.   www.4-5.co.uk
  4. 4.         Not  a  ‘Mountain  to  climb’  following  Kaldor       www.4-5.co.uk
  5. 5. Principles  emerging  out  of  Kaldor     •  Lesser  burden  on  D.   •  More  rigorous  eviden5al  burden  on  C.   •  C’s  evidence  of  copying  was  not  compelling  enough  to   give  Hacon  J  ‘reason  to  disbelieve’  coherent  evidence   given  by  D’s  principal  witness,  its  designer.   •  Importance  of  ini5al  design  brief.   •  Designers  to  maintain  a  proper  audit  trail.         www.4-5.co.uk
  6. 6. www.4-­‐5.co.uk   Significance  of  Decision         Significance  of  Judgment  in  Kaldor  v  Lee  Ann:     -­‐  Clarifies  that  mere  ‘objec5ve  similari5es’  are  insufficient  to   establish  copying.   -­‐  Establishes  a  ‘sliding  scale’  in  respect  of  proving  an  allega5on  of   copying.   -­‐  Emphasises  importance  of  maintaining  coherent  evidence  of  the   design  process  if  there  is  a  possibility  that  design  might  be  copied.   Provides  a  useful  summary  of  the  law  rela5ng  to  copying.  
  7. 7. 4-­‐5  Gray’s  Inn  Square   London   WC1R  5AH     +44(0)20    7404    5252     clerks@4-­‐5.co.uk   www.4-­‐5.co.uk       Presentation by Alexander Rozycki ______________ Barrister

×