The long awaited judgement from the High Court (IPEC) in the WaterRower (UK) Limited vs. Liking Limited (trading as Topiom) case is finally with us. It was ruled that the WaterRower arguably qualifies as a work of artistic craftsmanship.
Background to the WaterRower case
WaterRower, the claimant, made a claim against Liking Limited (Topiom), the defendant, claiming that Topiom’s two models of water resistance rowing machine infringed the copyright in the claimant’s WaterRower machine. In defence, the defendant applied to strike out the claim, or obtain summary judgment.
Work of artistic craftsmanship
The court was asked to address whether the WaterRower could be considered a “work of artistic craftsmanship” under UK copyright law. WaterRower claimed copyright protection for the design of their rowing machine, arguing it was a work of artistic craftsmanship. The defendant, Topiom, admitted to copying the design but contested its classification as such a work.
It was examined whether the WaterRower met the criteria for artistic craftsmanship, considering factors like the creator’s intention, the aesthetic appeal, and the craftsmanship involved. The judge found that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the WaterRower could potentially qualify as a work of artistic craftsmanship. The case will now proceed to trial for copyright infringement.
Due to the judgement, Topiom’s application to strike out the claim was rejected. The court deemed that the claim was not bound to fail and warranted further examination at trial.
The impact of Cofemel case on the judgement
The Cofemel case, decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), played a significant role in defining what constitutes a “work of artistic craftsmanship.” The Cofemel case had established that for a work to be protected by copyright, it must be an original intellectual creation of the author, reflecting their free and creative choices.
In the context of the WaterRower, Cofemel was referenced in relation to the level of originality and creative freedom required for the WaterRower to qualify as a work of artistic craftsmanship. The court in the WaterRower case considered whether the design involved creative choices beyond mere technical or functional considerations, as outlined in Cofemel. The judge noted that while the WaterRower had functional elements, there was potential for creative expression, which warranted further examination at trial.
Once again, the Cofemel case has outlined the importance of originality and creative freedom in determining copyright eligibility, influencing the court’s decision to allow the WaterRower case to proceed to trial.
Summary of the WaterRower case
- Artistic Craftsmanship: The WaterRower design could be considered a work of artistic craftsmanship, focusing on the creator’s intention, aesthetic appeal, and the craftsmanship involved.
- Legal Implications: The case highlighted the complexities in defining “artistic craftsmanship” and the need for a trial to explore the evidence and understand the law.
- Outcome: The court did not make a final determination on whether the WaterRower was a work of artistic craftsmanship, leaving this decision for the trial judge.
