You can grab other case briefs on other IPR topics from here.
Citation –[1964] 1 W.L.R. 273
Facts: Since 1951 Williams (respondents), who were well-known bookmakers, had sent their customers each week fixed odds football betting coupons arranged in a certain general form. In 1959 Ladbroke (appellants), who were also bookmakers, started to send out coupons closely resembling the respondents. It appeared that the respondents had not altered the general form of their coupon since 1951. A coupon was a sheet of paper on which’ were printed several lists of forthcoming matches. The respondents’ coupon contained 16 lists, each with an appropriate name. The appellants’ coupon contained 15 lists. The lists offered by the appellants were almost identical with those offered by the respondents in their corresponding lists. What the appellants adopted from the respondents were the types of wagers and to a large extent the arrangement and the heading. The only differences were that the appellants devised new headings and they worked out for themselves the different odds offered in respect of the various kinds of bets which, accordingly, they did not copy. And it was impossible to copy the selections of matches: the selections must be from the matches to take place in the following week, so there would not be time for one bookmaker to copy from .the coupon of another matter which alters every week. The coupons of some 20 other firms in the business were produced at the trial, and, while they have a general similarity, they vary very much in the nature of their lists and the variety of bets offered in respect of many of the lists. It is not disputed that a vast amount of skill, judgment, experience and work has gone into building up the respondents’ coupon.
Procedural History: Judgment of Lloyd-Jacob J. given on June 26, 1962, held (inter alia) that the respondents’ claim to copyright in their fixed odds football coupon or coupons failed on a point of law but adjudged that the respondents should recover one half of their agreed or taxed costs. The Court of Appeal held that the respondents were entitled to copyright and granted them an injunction and awarded the respondents the sum of 40s. as damages. This case is an appeal to the order from The Court of Appeals.
Issues:
1) Whether or to what extent copyright attaches to these coupons? In whole or in part?
2) If the coupons are subject to copyright, has enough copying been done to amount to infringement and whether it was proper to look at the several parts of the work separately?
Judgment: Copyright Act is not concerned with the “originality of ideas”, but with the expression of thought, and, in the case of ‘ literary work, with the expression of thought in print or writing. The originality which is required relates to “the expression of the thought”. As regards compilation, originality is a matter of degree depending on the amount of skill, judgment or labour that has been involved in making the compilation. The precise amount of knowledge, labour, judgment or literary skill or taste which the author must bestow in order to acquire copyright must in each case be very much a question of degree. Rough practical test is that “what is worth copying is prima facie worth protecting”. When all the hard work has been done in deciding upon the wagers to be offered, there still remains the further distinct task, requiring considerable skill, labour and judgment (though of a different kind) in the way in which the chosen wagers are expressed and presented to the eye of the customer. The extent to which the appellants copied from the respondents’ coupon appears to amount to be a very substantial part of the coupon both in quantity and quality. Therefore, there has been an infringement in this case.
Conclusion:This case is important for a better understanding of copyright because it establishes that for a work to be protected under copyright its expression must be original. In order to determine originality you must see the facts of the case and determine if any skill, labour and judgment was used to make the work, or any part of the work. If so, the whole work will be copyright protected and it is no defence to claim that you only copied the parts that didn’t require skill or judgement. Here, respondents’ coupon was a compilation and so an original literary work, the subject of copyright and appellants had reproduced a substantial part of it, therefore breached.
You can grab other case briefs on other IPR topics from here.
