Designer Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd
Designer Guild Limited v. Russell Williams (Textiles) Limited, is a leading House of Lords case on what constitutes copying in copyright infringement cases. The House of Lords considered whether there was infringement of a fabric design. Although both the copyrighted work and the infringing design were different in detail, the overall impression of the designs was the same. This decision is significant because the House of Lords ruled that copyright infringement is dependent on whether the defendant copied a substantial portion of the original work, rather than whether the two works look  the same. The outcome suggests that in the United Kingdom the overall impression of a copyrighted work is protected if the copied features involved the labour, skill and originality of the author's work, even if the copyrighted work and infringing work are different in detail. Background of case. Designer Guild Limited (“DGL”) and Russell Williams (Textiles) Limited (“RWT”) both design and sell fabrics and wallpapers. DGL held a copyright in its "Ixia" design. DGL accused RWT of copyright infringement, alleging that the RWT design, "Marguerite", copied "Ixia". Both designs included a combination of flowers and stripes, a similar style  of painting, and use of the resist effect (part of the stripe color shows through the flower petals). Under section 16(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, infringement will be found if there is copying of the work as a whole or any substantial part of it. There were two issues at the trial: The deputy judge of the Chancery Division found that RWT's "Marguerite" design had been copied from DGL's "Ixia" design and that there had been copying of a substantial part. The judge identified the copied features as: the combination and relation of flowers  and stripes, the manner in which they were painted, and the “resist effect”. The judge determined that the combination of these features formed a substantial part of the "Ixia" design. On appeal, RWT challenged the judge's finding that the copied features formed a substantial part of the "Ixia" design. The issue of copying was not challenged. The Court of Appeal upheld RWT's challenge to the finding of substantiality. DGL appealed. The Court's decision. The House of Lords allowed DGL's appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the judge's decision. Lord Bingham of Cornhill. Lord Bingham  of Cornhill found that the Court of Appeal erred in overruling the decision of the judge because: Lord Hope of Craighead agreed with these reasons and also allowed the appeal. Lord Hoffmann. Lord Hoffmann found that the Court of Appeal erred in overruling the decision of the judge because: Lord Hoffmann provided guidance on the concept that British copyright law protects the expression of the idea rather than the idea itself. He noted two propositions about the distinction between ideas and expression: Lord Hoffmann concluded that the "Ixia" expression was more than just the idea of a flower-stripe combination , and therefore original enough to represent the author's skill and labour and form a substantial part of the originality of the work. A writer for the European Intellectual Property Review explained that while he did not explicitly state it, Lord Hoffmann provided a new test for whether a substantial part of the original work was copied. The proposed test is whether the part taken would itself attract copyright protection. Lord Millett. Lord Millett found that the Court of Appeal erred overruling the decision of the judge because: