Ultra Marketing (UK) Ltd & Anor v Universal Components Ltd

Copyright in an engineering drawing protects its original visual features, not an unprotected technical idea expressed in the drawing. Indirect copying may occur where a later design is derived through an intermediate drawing, artefact or sufficiently precise verbal instructions. The relevant inquiry remains whether there is objective similarity in a substantial part of the copyright work and a causal connection between that work and the alleged copy.

Where a designer receives only a general idea and works within pre-existing technical constraints, differences in dimensions, configuration and practical design may establish independent creation. Evidence of access and similarity may raise an inference of copying, but the ultimate question is one of fact after considering all the evidence.

Thomas Alexander Scott claimed copyright in a 1976 drawing showing an extruded aluminium sign-frame profile incorporating pips for locating cleats. Ultra Marketing (UK) Ltd had discontinued its claim, and an earlier preliminary issue had established that Mr Scott did not own copyright in the later GAP 500 drawing.

Universal Components Ltd produced Panatrim 5 and Panatrim Major profiles incorporating pips. Mr Scott alleged that these designs indirectly copied his 1976 drawing through GAP 500 and the Ultraframe product, or through access to related drawings and samples. Universal Components contended that the profiles were independently designed following general verbal instructions and existing technical constraints. The central issues were whether the 1976 drawing was an original artistic work and whether the defendant’s designs reproduced a substantial part of it.

1. Originality and protection. The 1976 drawing originated with Mr Scott and involved skill and labour, so it was an original artistic work under the Copyright Act 1956. Its protection was confined to its visual characteristics, rather than the technical idea of incorporating pips or cleats.
2. Indirect copying. The court accepted that copying could be indirect. If GAP 500 had copied the 1976 drawing and the defendant had copied GAP 500, the defendant could have indirectly copied the 1976 drawing despite Mr Scott not owning copyright in GAP 500. The same principle could operate through sufficiently precise verbal instructions. The authorities, including British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd [1986] AC 577, Solar Thomson Engineering Co Ltd v Barton [1977] RPC 537, Plix Products Ltd v Frank M Winstone (Merchants) [1986] FSR 63 and LA Gear Inc v Hi-Tec Sports plc [1992] FSR 121, supported that analysis.
3. Copying test. Copying required sufficient objective similarity for the alleged infringement to be a reproduction or adaptation, together with a causal connection showing that the copyright work was the source. Similarities could raise an evidential inference, but the final question was whether copying had occurred on all the evidence. The visual comparison principles in Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams Textiles Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2416 were applied.
4. Application. Mr Ford had not seen the 1976 drawing. The common feature, pips, was a commonplace idea in the industry. The dimensions, slot, extrusion width, wall thickness and other profile features differed. The design constraints arose from Universal Components’ existing profiles and standard cleats. These matters rebutted any inference of copying and established independent creation.
5. The claim was dismissed. Universal Components had done no more than revive its own earlier idea of incorporating pips into suitable Panatrim profiles.