Equisafety Ltd vs Woof Wear Ltd: High Court rules on copyright in equestrian products

Introduction

The High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, recently delivered a judgment in the case of Equisafety Limited vs Woof Wear Limited. The case centred around allegations of copyright infringement concerning high visibility equestrian products, specifically a waistcoat, an elasticated hat band, and a neck band for a horse.

Background

The case was initiated by Equisafety Limited, a company specialising in equestrian safety gear, claiming that Woof Wear Limited had infringed their copyright by displaying similar products at a trade fair. The products in question were designed to enhance the visibility of horse riders and their mounts.

Initially, the claim was for infringement of registered designs and passing off, but the court granted summary judgment for the defendant on these points. The claim was then amended to focus solely on copyright infringement, specifically as works of artistic craftsmanship under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Legal Issues

The primary legal questions were whether copyright subsisted in the Claimant's products and whether Equisafety owned the copyright. The court examined whether the products qualified as works of artistic craftsmanship, a category requiring both artistic and craftsmanship elements.

Evidence and Arguments

Ms Nicola Fletcher, representing Equisafety, argued that the products were original works of artistic craftsmanship. She detailed various features of the products, such as reflective materials and design modifications, claiming these elements demonstrated artistic and craftsmanship qualities.

However, the court found that many features were functional or dictated by technical standards, such as the European Standard EN1150 for high visibility clothing. The court also noted that some design features were developed in collaboration with manufacturers, complicating the claim of sole authorship.

Judgment

The court ruled that the products did not qualify as works of artistic craftsmanship. It found that the modifications and design elements were primarily functional, aimed at improving visibility and usability, rather than artistic expression. Consequently, the products did not meet the necessary criteria for copyright protection under the CDPA.

Ownership and Authorship

Additionally, the court questioned the ownership of any potential copyright. Ms Fletcher had created the designs over several years, with some work predating the formation of Equisafety. The court found insufficient evidence to establish that Equisafety owned the rights to the designs.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the claim, concluding that the products were not protectable as works of artistic craftsmanship and that Equisafety had not established ownership of any copyright.

Learn More

To explore key topics like legal compliance, business practices, data breaches, and tools to safeguard data, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.