Fashion: Does Copyright exist in Fabric Design? A clothesmanufacturer claimed copyright in a fabric design and sued a clothes retailer for selling infringing copies of it.
Response Clothing Limited (“RCL”) manufactured tops from a jacquard fabric with a distinctive wave pattern design woven into it (“Wave Fabric”).RCL supplied the Wave Fabric to Edinburgh Woolen Mill Limited (“EWM”), a clothes retailer. Some disputes broke out which led to EWM seeking out other suppliers of tops.It sent a sample of the Wave Fabric to Visage Limited, who then supplied EWM with their own fabric tops (“Visage Fabric”). EWM again changed suppliers, sourcing tops from a Vietnamese company (“Vietnam Fabric”) and then a Bangladeshi manufacturer (“Bangladesh Fabric”). EWM sold the Visage, Vietnam and Bangladesh Fabrics (“Other Fabrics”) in its stores.
RCL alleged that Other Fabrics were infringing copies of the Wave Fabric, and sued EWM for infringing its copyright by dealing in them.
RCL claimed copyright in the Wave Fabriccalling it‘a work of artistic craftsmanship’. It was originally conceived and designed by an employee ofGIN Textile Limited (“GTL”). GTL assigned the copyright ownership to RCL. RCL said that the Other Fabrics had close similarities with the Wave Fabric and thus, they were infringing copies.
EWM said that a copyright could not exist in a fabric design. It also said that there was no proof of the Wave Fabric’s originality. Hence, RCL had no basis for claiming copyright infringement.
The Court first had to decide whether a copyright could exist in a fabric design and if yes, whether RCL had copyright in the Wave Fabric.Ifit had the copyright, the Court had to decide if EWM had infringed it.
The Court said that for something to be a work of artistic craftsmanship, it had to be made by someone in a skilful way, and the thing made had to be aesthetically pleasing for others.
The Court, after looking at a sample of the Wave Fabric, accepted that creating it wouldrequire a degree of skill. Moreover, the fact that so many tops made from the Wave Fabric had been sold showed that people found it aesthetically pleasing. Thus, the Court found that the Wave Fabric was a work of artistic craftsmanship and therefore, a copyright could exist in it.
There was no dispute that GTL had assigned the copyright in the Wave Fabric to RCL. Thus, the Court also accepted that RCL had copyright in the Wave Fabric.
The Court found that the Other Fabrics were close enough to the Wave Fabric to say that a substantial part of the Wave Fabric had been copied. Thus, it held that the Other Fabrics were infringing copies.
RCL had argued that EWM had infringed its copyright by ‘issuing infringing copies to the public’. The Court found that when Visage Limited, the Vietnamese company and the Bangladeshi manufacturer supplied the Other Fabrics to EWM, they had issued infringing copies to the public first (before EWM could trade in them in any manner). Thus, EWM had not directly infringed RCL’s copyright. However, the Court found that when EWM accepted delivery of the Other Fabrics, due to their close similarity with the Wave Fabric, it knew that it was receiving infringing copies. Despite this, EWM chose to deal in them commercially.Thus, the Court found that EWM had indirectly infringed RCL’s copyright in the Wave Fabric and RCL’s claim succeeded.
A copyright will exist even in a clothing accessory if it is a skilfully created item that people find aesthetically pleasing.
Should you wish to discuss any similar issues that your business is facing please feel free to contact us and a member of our team will seek out cost effective solutions if you are faced with a litigation or wish to ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in place to protect your position.