gunnercooke celebrates landmark High Court judgment in WaterRower (UK) Ltd v. Liking Ltd (T/A Topiom)

gunnercooke IP Partner Rachel Pearse has announced the successful ruling from the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in the WaterRower (UK) Limited v. Liking Limited (T/A Topiom) case.

In one of the most significant IP cases in recent years, WaterRower UK Limited (‘WaterRower’) claimed its water resistance rowing machines were works of artistic craftmanship protected under s.4(1)(c) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended). They alleged that Liking Limited (‘Liking’) had copied these works and infringed their copyright by reproducing ‘a substantial part’ of the works in their TOPIOM water rowing machines.

gunnercooke acted for the Defendant, Liking. Partner Rachel Pearse and her team argued that no copyright subsisted in the works claimed by WaterRower and highlighted the conflict between UK and EU law in the application of such protection – the High Court being bound by the House of Lords decision in Hensher (which requires something more than ‘eye appeal’ and that the works must be artistic, but at the same time being bound by EU case law, in particular, Cofemel and Brompton which do not require any consideration of aesthetic visual effect (and therefore artistic merit)).

Today, in a long-anticipated case, Judge Campbell-Forsyth, sitting the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, ruled that no copyright subsists in the works (including the prototype) as works of artistic craftsmanship, and as a consequence, there was no infringement.

This judgment is one of the most important developments in the IP industry this year and could change UK copyright law relating to the protection of works of artistic craftsmanship, as well as highlighting the inconsistencies between the EU and UK legal approaches.

Rachel Pearse said: “This judgment is a significant victory for our client, Liking. There has been much debate about what constitutes a work of artistic craftsmanship, and we’re pleased that this case will lead to more clarity on this matter and will potentially have far-reaching implications in the law of copyright.”

← Back to News