The need for a defendant, accused of copying, to overcome the obstacle created by the similarity of his work with that of the claimant’s, did not remove entirely the claimant’s own obligation to prove his case. As the degree of similarity increased, so might the incredulity of the defendant’s denial of copying, and explanations. Nevertheless, the court should be slow to find for the claimant only on the issue of onus. Where the defendant received a brief which might lead to the production of work similar to the claimant’s was the selection of a design similar to the claimant’s an act of copying? It is a question of degree. Where the design specified would inevitably create a design similar to the claimant’s that was not itself to be taken as copying.
Citations:
Times 14-Feb-2001, Gazette 05-Apr-2001, [2001] FSR 44
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Point Solutions Ltd v Focus Business Solutions Ltd and Another ChD 16-Dec-2005
It was claimed that the defendant’s computer software infringed the copyright in software owned by the claimant. A declaration was sought beacause of allegations that assertions about infringement had been made to third parties.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89571