Supreme Court Star Wars battle sees key copyright ruling handed down
The Supreme Court has delivered a mixed ruling in the battle between George Lucas's movie empire and a UK prop designer over the sale of the iconic Stormtrooper helmets from the Star Wars films. The Court held that while Lucasfilm can enforce a US copyright in the UK, the Stormtrooper helmets sold were functional, rather than works of art, and therefore the defendant did not breach copyright laws.
July 27, 2011 at 10:21 AM
3 minute read
The Supreme Court has delivered a mixed ruling in the battle between George Lucas's movie empire and a UK prop designer over the sale of the iconic Stormtrooper helmets from the Star Wars films.
The Court held that while Lucasfilm can enforce a US copyright in the UK, the Stormtrooper helmets sold were functional, rather than works of art, and therefore the defendant did not breach copyright laws.
The US film production company had attempted to stop Twickenham-based designer Andrew Ainsworth from selling replica costumes over the internet – both in the US and in the UK. Lower UK courts had ruled in 2008 and 2009 that the costumes were not works of art and therefore not covered by British copyright law.
The Supreme Court today (27 July) upheld these decisions, while simultaneously conceding that Ainsworth had violated Lucas's copyright in the US by selling costumes there, and that he should be forbidden from doing so in future.
The Supreme Court also concluded that, provided there is a basis for 'in personam' jurisdiction over the defendant, an English court can exercise jurisdiction in a claim against persons domiciled in England for infringements committed outside the European Union.
Mayer Brown London litigation chief David Allen commented: "The judgment means that the UK will become a destination jurisdiction for forum-shoppers keen to find the best jurisdiction for hearing and, critically, enforcing IP disputes wherever infringement has taken place – particularly, for example, where infringement takes place in a country with less stable and internationally respected legal systems than the UK, such as the third world."
Allen & Overy intellectual property (IP) partner Huw Evans added: "Even though the Imperial Stormtrooper helmets were the product of much imagination and creativity, the Court still viewed them as functional items within the context of the film and denied them the full copyright protection which would have given them a much longer period of protection for their merchandising around these helmets."
He added: "In essence the Court held that it was the film which is the artistic work and not the helmet. It follows that full copyright protection for 3D articles in the UK will generally continue to be limited to the fine arts."
Linklaters IP partner Nigel Jones added: "Businesses should heed the Court's warning that the boundaries of copyright protection should not be extended to works which do not fall within its intended ambit. It was on the basis of this point of principle that the Court held that the Imperial Stormtrooper helmets should not be treated as sculptures, and as a result, not qualify for copyright protection under English law."
The case saw Lucasfilm instruct Harbottle & Lewis IP partner Mark Owen, who in turn instructed Brick Court Chambers' Jonathan Sumption QC to lead the advocacy alongside Wilberforce Chambers heavyweight Michael Bloch QC. Ainsworth was advised by West End-based firm SC Andrew, which instructed Alastair Wilson QC of Hogarth Chambers.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Spain Loses Appeal as London Court Rejects Claim of Immunity in €101 Million Arbitral Award Enforcement
Jones Day Expands European Footprint with Global Disputes Partner in Madrid
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250