Legal Waters Tested in WaterRower Ruling
The long-awaited judgment in the WaterRower Limited v Liking Limited (t/a Topiom) copyright case marks a pivotal moment in intellectual property law.
The case involved a dispute over whether the WaterRower rowing machine could qualify for copyright protection as a “work of artistic craftsmanship” under UK law, specifically section 4(1)(c) of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). After a 15-month delay, the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court issued the long-awaited ruling, concluding that whilst the WaterRower design met the EU’s ‘originality’ requirement for copyright protection, it did not satisfy the UK’s stricter criteria to constitute a work of artistic craftsmanship.
Initially, the defendant, Liking Limited, sought to dismiss the claim by arguing that the WaterRower design did not possess the artistic qualities necessary for copyright protection. The court permitted the case to move forward, first applying the EU Infopaq originality standard as a preliminary measure for protection, and then assessing it against the UK’s artistic craftsmanship test.
Under EU copyright law, the judge concluded that because the WaterRower design was not solely dictated by its function and there was freedom for the creator to make their own individual stamp on the design, that the prototype would be protected under EU copyright law. In applying the UK test, the court found that, although the WaterRower was widely admired for its aesthetic qualities and craftsmanship, it did not qualify for copyright protection. The judge clarified the meaning of “artistic,” stating that a work must possess “an artistic justification for its own existence.” However, the court determined that the WaterRower was designed primarily for commercial purposes, rather than as an artistic endeavour. While acknowledging that the UK test isn’t strictly necessary under EU copyright law, the court’s use of it led to the conclusion that the WaterRower design did not satisfy the artistic requirement under UK law. As a result, the UK’s stricter standard ultimately prevailed.
The ruling highlights the complexities surrounding the protection of functional items under UK copyright law, specifically "works of applied art." In the UK, the threshold for granting copyright protection to such works has traditionally been high. A product must be both artistic and crafted with skill to qualify as a work of artistic craftsmanship. The WaterRower case, however, was further complicated by the evolving EU standard for copyright protection. The UK’s threshold remains high, demanding that designs not only display originality but also the design must be artistic, i.e. hold an aesthetic appeal, and involve a level of craftsmanship to be considered for protection under s. 4(1)(c), CDPA. In contrast, the EU's broader approach, established in cases such as Cofemel and Brompton, only requires originality and does not impose an "artistic craftsmanship" requirement. The court’s inability to reconcile these divergent standards ultimately led to the dismissal of WaterRower’s copyright claim, with no finding of infringement by Liking Limited.
This decision underscores a critical deviation between the UK's more conservative stance and the EU's broader interpretation of copyright protection. While this may be seen as a setback for product designers seeking protection for functional designs, the case remains significant for its exploration of the shifting landscape of copyright law in the wake of the UK's departure from the EU.
Written by Lauren Mills for ip21.