Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth

Last updated

Lucasfilm v Ainsworth
Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full case name Lucasfilm Limited and others (Appellants) v Ainsworth and another (Respondents)
Decided27 July 2011
Citations [2011] UKSC 39, [2012] 1 AC 208
Court membership
Judges sitting Lord Phillips
Lord Walker
Lady Hale
Lord Mance
Lord Collins

Lucasfilm Limited v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39 was a 2011 court ruling by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. [1] [2] The case concerned an intellectual property dispute over the production of Lucasfilm's Stormtrooper costumes by model maker Andrew Ainsworth. [3] Ainsworth argued that the helmets, which he continues to manufacture and sell, were functional props covered only by design right legislation, as opposed to Lucasfilm's assertion that they were sculptures or art which fall under copyright law. [4] Design right protection is retained for 15 or 10 years, whereas copyright protection in this case would last 70 years after the death of the author. [5]

Contents

Case background

The Stormtrooper character first appeared in the film Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope . The character was conceived by George Lucas, designed by artist Ralph McQuarrie, sculpted by Liz Moore [6] and Brian Muir, [7] and finally molded from the existing designs by Andrew Ainsworth. Before the case came to court, Ainsworth had sold replica Stormtrooper outfits online for many years causing Lucasfilm to sue for infringement of copyright. [8] [4] Ainsworth did not defend the 2006 case in the US courts and defaulted. Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Central District of California gave summary judgement in favour of Lucasfilm, awarding a USD $20 million compensation. [9]

In the English courts, Lucasfilm was represented by Michael Bloch QC and Jonathan Sumption QC. [10] Mr. Ainsworth was represented by Alastair Wilson QC and George Hamer. [11]

Court ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the Stormtrooper helmets could not be considered a sculpture for the purposes of section 4 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. [12] On the issue of the justiciability of a foreign copyright claim, the court ruled that providing that there is in personam jurisdiction over a defendant, an English court does have jurisdiction in this area. On this point, the case was distinguished from British South Africa v Companhia de Mocambique , [13] that expressed the general principle that English courts have no jurisdiction to entertain an action to determine title, where claims applied to foreign intellectual property rights. [10]

As part of their conclusions on the justiciability question, Lord Walker and Lord Collins stated: [14]

We have come to the firm conclusion that, in the case of a claim for infringement of copyright of the present kind, the claim is one over which the English court has jurisdiction, provided that there is a basis for in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, or, to put it differently, the claim is justiciable. It is clear that much of the underpinning of the Moçambique rule and the decision in Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [15] has been eroded. All that is left of the Moçambique rule (except to the extent that it is modified by the Brussels I Regulation) is that there is no jurisdiction in proceedings for infringement of rights in foreign land where the proceedings are "principally concerned with a question of the title, or the right to possession, of that property". [2] : at [106] 

They went on further to state:

The basis for what remains of the rule was said by the House of Lords in the Moçambique case to be that controversies should be decided in the country of the situs of the property because the right of granting it was vested in "the ruler of the country" and in the Hesperides case to be the maintenance of comity and the avoidance of conflict with foreign jurisdictions. It is possible to see how the rationale of the Moçambique rule can be applied to patents, at any rate where questions of validity are involved. [2] : at [107] 

See also

Related Research Articles

Justice is a human rights and law reform organisation based in the United Kingdom. It is the British section of the International Commission of Jurists, the international human rights organisation of lawyers devoted to the legal protection of human rights worldwide. Members of Justice are predominantly barristers and solicitors, judges, legal academics, and law students.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption</span> English lawyer and judge

Jonathan Philip Chadwick Sumption, Lord Sumption,, KC, is a British author, medieval historian, barrister and former senior judge who sat on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom between 2012 and 2018, and a Non-Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal from 2019 to 2024.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Pannick, Baron Pannick</span> British lawyer and House of Lords crossbencher

David Philip Pannick, Baron Pannick, is a British barrister and a crossbencher in the House of Lords. He practises mainly in the areas of public law and human rights. He has argued cases before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights.

Shepperton Design Studios is an England-based manufacturer of Star Wars replica props and memorabilia that was sued by Lucasfilm for copyright infringement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Reed, Baron Reed of Allermuir</span> President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Robert John Reed, Baron Reed of Allermuir, is a Scottish judge who has been President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom since January 2020. He was the principal judge in the Commercial Court in Scotland before being promoted to the Inner House of the Court of Session in 2008. He is an authority on human rights law in Scotland and elsewhere; he served as one of the UK's ad hoc judges at the European Court of Human Rights. He was also a Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong.

<i>Mozambique rule</i>

The Moçambique rule, or Mozambique rule, is a common law rule in private international law. The rule renders actions relating to title in foreign land, the right to possession of foreign land, and trespass to foreign land non-justiciable in common law jurisdictions. It was established in 1893 by the House of Lords decision in British South Africa Co v. Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602.

<i>Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd, was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 20 March 1906. The case was an influential decision in Australian Private International Law which is generally regarded as based on an extension of the Moçambique rule to actions for infringement of patents.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Leggatt, Lord Leggatt</span> British judge (born 1957)

George Andrew Midsomer Leggatt, Lord Leggatt, is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the highest court of law in the United Kingdom.

Memory Institute SA CC t/a SA Memory Institute v Hansen and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The judges were Harms JA, Schutz JA, Cameron JA, Conradie JA and Heher JA, who heard the case on May 8, 2003, handing down judgment on May 16, 2003. PJ Heymans appeared for the appellant; MH Wessels SC for the respondents.

Public Relations Consultants Association v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd was a 2011 case UK Supreme Court case decided in 2013.

<i>Re B</i> (A Child)

Re B (A Child) or In the matter of B (A child) [2016] UKSC 4 was a 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning the habitual residence of a child under English law.

<i>R v Jogee</i> 2016 British landmark legal case on joint enterprise

R v Jogee[2016] UKSC 8 was a 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that reversed previous case law on joint enterprise. The Supreme Court delivered its ruling jointly with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was considering an appeal from Jamaica, Ruddock v The Queen [2016] UKPC 7.

Sir James Raymond Eadie, KC is a British barrister. Since January 2009, he has served as the First Treasury Counsel, the government's independent barrister on legal issues of national importance. He represented the UK Government in the R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union case in 2016, and in the R (Miller) v The Prime Minister case in 2019.

Michael Gordon Bloch KC is a British barrister who is a member of Blackstone Chambers.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2019.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2022.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2023.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2024.

References

  1. ↑ "The Supreme Court Press Summary" (PDF). Supremecourt.gov.uk. 27 July 2011. Retrieved 30 July 2011.[ permanent dead link ]
  2. 1 2 3 Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39 , Supreme Court (UK).
  3. ↑ "George Lucas defeated by Star Wars helmet man Andrew Ainsworth". Metro.co.uk. Retrieved 30 July 2011.
  4. 1 2 "The Lucasfilm empire strikes out". Toronto: theglobeandmail.com. Retrieved 31 July 2011.
  5. ↑ "How copyright protects your work". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  6. ↑ DeBord, Jason (16 March 2011). "Facebook Hosts Ongoing Public Debate Over Original Sculptor Credit for Star Wars Stormtrooper". OriginalProp.com. Retrieved 9 September 2011.
  7. ↑ DeBord, Jason (24 June 2008). "Star Wars "Prototype" Stormtrooper Helmets". OriginalProp.com. Retrieved 1 September 2011.
  8. ↑ "Judgement: Lucasfilm Limited and others (Appellants) v Ainsworth and another (Respondents)" (PDF). Supremecourt.gov.uk. Retrieved 31 July 2011.[ permanent dead link ]
  9. ↑ "Lucasfilm Ltd. Wins Major Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Star Wars Stormtrooper Pirate" (Press release). Lucasfilm, Ltd. 11 October 2006. Archived from the original on 10 September 2011. Retrieved 1 September 2011.
  10. 1 2 "Judgement: Lucasfilm Limited and others (Appellants) v Ainsworth and another (Respondents)" (PDF). Supremecourt.gov.uk. Retrieved 31 July 2011.[ permanent dead link ]
  11. ↑ "Lucasfilm Limited and others (Appellants) v Ainsworth and another (Respondents)" (PDF). supreme court.uk. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  12. ↑ "Reputational law: Star Wars stormtrooper battle is a warning on copyright protection". inhouselawyer.co.uk. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  13. ↑ British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602, House of Lords, (England and Wales).
  14. ↑ Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39, [105].
  15. ↑ Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1906] HCA 88, (1906) 3 CLR 479 (20 March 1906), High Court (Australia)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.