placeholder-image coin

Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks and Spencer Plc, 2003 1 AC 551

Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks and Spencer Plc, 2003 1 AC 551


Citation:Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks and Spencer Plc, 2003 1 AC 551

Link to case on WorldLII.

Rule of thumb:What is the test for breach of design law? The test is striking similarity. The Court in this case held that the overall ‘distinctive appearance’ was not similar enough to constitute an infringement, even although there were similarities in the underlying structure.

Background facts:

The facts of this case were that a newspaper sued for copyright infringement after the manner in which they laid out their newspaper was markedly similar to newsletters being provided by Marks and Spencer.

Judgment:

The Court held that the typography as a whole did not bare a striking enough similarity to give it the same ‘distinctive’ appearance.

centered image

Ratio-decidendi:

‘in my opinion, the frame of reference for the term “published edition” is the language of the publishing public... is principally expressed in the overall design. It is not the particular typeface, the precise number or width of the columns, the breadth of the margins and the relationship of headlines and strap lines to the other text, the number of articles in a page and the distribution of photographs and advertisements but the combination of all of these into pages which give the newspaper as a whole its distinctive appearance... I find it difficult to think of the skill and labour which has gone into the typographical arrangement of a newspaper being expressed in anything less than a full page. The particular fonts. Columns, margins and so forth are only, so to speak, the typographical vocabulary in which the arrangement is expressed’ Lord Hoffman

Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.