De modeltekening voor het bedieningspaneel van een kookfornuis is niet auteursrechtelijk beschermd, aldus de Britse rechter

High Court of Justice 8 juli 2024, IEF 22230, IEFbe 3782; [2024] EWHC 1727 (IPEC) (AGA Rangemaster Group Limited tegen UK Innovations Group Limited en Michael Patrick McGinley). De Britse rechter doet in deze zaak uitspraak over een geschil tussen AGA Rangemaster Group Limited (hierna: AGA) enerzijds en UK Innovations Group Limited en Michael Patrick McGinley (hierna: gedaagden) anderzijds. AGA is de fabrikant en verkoper van de populaire Britse AGA-kookfornuizen. Gedaagden specialiseren zich in de installatie en verkoop van elektronische kooksystemen, onder andere met betrekking tot AGA-fornuizen. Met andere woorden, zij refurbishen AGA-fornuizen zodat die op stroom kunnen werken en zij verkopen de aangepaste modellen vervolgens door aan derden. AGA heeft in beginsel geen bezwaar tegen deze praktijk. Echter, AGA stelt dat gedaagden te ver gaan in hun bewerkingen en in hun marketing, wat beide inbreuk zou maken op haar merkrechten. Ook stelt zij dat het door gedaagden geïnstalleerde bedieningspaneel in de AGA-fornuizen inbreuk maakt op het auteursrecht dat AGA heeft op een modeltekening van een van haar eigen fornuizen. Gedaagden zijn het niet met de stellingen eens.

De rechter stelt voorop dat merkhouders een geldige reden kunnen hebben om de doorverkoop van hun producten te verhinderen, bijvoorbeeld als dit de reputatie van de merkhouder schaadt of de indruk wekt dat de merkhouder en doorverkoper economisch verbonden zijn. Wel moet daarbij rekening worden gehouden met de belangen van de doorverkoper. In dit geval oordeelt de rechter dat, hoewel de door gedaagden verrichte bewerkingen zijn toegestaan, de marketing van gedaagden meebrengt dat er inbreuk wordt gemaakt op de merkrechten van AGA. Deze marketing wekt namelijk de indruk dat AGA en gedaagden economisch verbonden zijn. Verder oordeelt de rechter dat de bedieningspanelen van gedaagden geen inbreuk maken op het auteursrecht van AGA. Daarvoor constateert zij eerst dat AGA wel beschikt over een auteursrecht: het argument van gedaagden dat het bedieningspaneel van AGA niet creatief is maar uitsluitend tot stand is gekomen vanuit technische overwegingen, gaat niet op. Daarnaast constateert de rechter dat het bedieningspaneel van gedaagden overeenkomt met die van de modeltekening van AGA. Maar ondanks de gelijkenis, brengt artikel 51 van de Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 mee dat gedaagden geen inbreuk maken op het auteursrecht van AGA. De modeltekening van AGA ziet namelijk niet op een artistiek werk. Gelet op de Cofemel uitspraak van het Europese Hof zou er ook anders geredeneerd kunnen worden, maar de rechter stelt zich voor nu terughoudend op aangezien partijen het artikel niet zelf hebben ingeroepen.

52. In my judgment, these statements taken as a whole were likely to give customers the impression that what they were being offered was an AGA product (an eControl AGA, one of a range of AGA products) and this was something about which the Claimant could legitimately object. In this regard, the reference to the "eControl AGA" was likely to be seen, not as descriptive (or not as purely descriptive) but rather as part of the brand for the product being offered for sale (just as "eR7" is used as part of the brand for the "AGA eR7 model mentioned above [13]), and as linked to the "AGA" name which, as set out below, has a highly distinctive character thereby increasing the risk of confusion - see Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc [2024] EWCA Civ 29 at [10(h)]. Similarly, taking these statements as a whole, I find that the references to the eControl System were likely to be taken as references to a system that was connected with the Claimant - certainly in the absence of any statement making clear that what was on offer was not derived from or connected with the Claimant. Accordingly, whilst (for the reasons set out above) I do not think that the Claimant had legitimate reasons to object to the Defendants selling AGA Cookers which they had refurbished and fitted with the eControl System, I find that it did have legitimate reasons to object to the way in which the Defendants went about marketing and selling these cookers. In my judgment, in this context, the interests of the Claimant as a trade mark proprietor outweigh the interests of people (such as the Defendants) dealing with the cookers in the aftermarket.

88. As set out above, the Defendants assert that the drawing was not original on the basis that the appearance of the control panel it depicts was dictated by technical considerations, such that there were no or only very limited creative choices that its author could make. I reject that argument. Although, as Mr Johnson accepted, the design depicted in the drawing was influenced by the function which the panel was intended to perform (namely to control the operation of the cooker), I do not accept that it was dictated by that function. There were numerous designs which could have performed that function. [17] Having heard Mr Johnson's evidence, I have no doubt that he made creative or aesthetic choices driven by his wish to create a design that captured what he called the historic look of the traditional AGA Cookers. The drawing reflects those choices. He chose to create a design drawing featuring rotational dials (rather than push buttons) aligned vertically, to which he chose to add an elongated oval line around the dials and to add a further line running, initially horizontally, away from that oval across and then vertically up to a thermodial positioned on the upper right hand side of the panel.

101. The significance of Cofemel with regard to s.51 and how an English court should respond to it are unclear. On the one hand, it could be argued that s.51 does not set any additional requirement for the subsistence of copyright; where it applies, copyright subsists in the design document but is simply not infringed by the particular acts specified in s.51. On the other hand, under art.2 of the Information Society Directive, it is an infringement of copyright in a work to reproduce (i.e. to copy) that work and a provision such as s.51 goes far beyond anything which that Directive envisages as a permitted exception to this (see art.5 of the Directive). Moreover, it seems clear that the CJEU in Cofemel saw the answer to the problem that s.51 was intended to address (the unwanted application of copyright protection in the sphere of industrial design) as lying in applying the test for originality rigorously in the case of a design (see paragraph 100(b) above). This would suggest that, once that test is satisfied, a limitation on the scope of the protection provided by copyright would not be permitted.

102. In the absence of any submissions on this issue, I do not think that it is possible for me to reach any final conclusion as to the impact of Cofemel on s.51. Instead, like the parties, I will deal with the s.51 issue simply on the basis of its own wording. On that basis, for the reasons set out above, I find that although copyright subsisted in the design drawing, the actions of the Defendants were permitted by reason of s.51. I therefore dismiss the Claimant's copyright infringement claim.