Davies v Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club (1986) Ltd

Copyright infringement requires proof of copying, not merely similarity between works. The claimant must identify the copyright work relied on and establish a causal link between that work and the alleged copy, including a sufficient opportunity for access. Similarity may support an inference of copying, but it cannot replace proof of transmission or access. Where a work made many years earlier cannot be reconstructed reliably, detailed comparisons may carry little weight. A general resemblance between independently created designs does not establish infringement. The claim fails where the alleged copier’s evidence of independent creation is accepted and the proposed routes of conscious or subconscious copying are implausible.

Mr Peter Davies claimed that Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club’s 1979 wolf’s-head logo copied a wolf’s-head design which he had drawn as a teenager in the early 1960s. He relied on surviving drawings and attempted reconstructions of an alleged competition entry. The Club denied access to, or copying of, his work. The central issues were whether the relevant copyright work could be identified, whether the Club’s designer had access to it, and whether the similarity resulted from conscious or subconscious copying.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court found that the claimant had produced drawings from 1961–1963 which had a noticeable general resemblance to the Club’s 1979 logo. That resemblance did not itself establish copying.
2. The alleged competition entry had not been proved. Even assuming that the claimant had entered a wolf’s-head design in some competition, the original work had not survived and its detailed appearance could not now be reconstructed reliably. The later reconstructions were influenced by the claimant’s belief that the Club had copied him.
3. The claimant had to identify the copyright work relied on and show how the Club’s designer could have obtained access to it. The suggested routes through art-school contacts or the Club chairman were unsupported and cumulatively implausible.
4. The court accepted Mr Jackson’s evidence that he designed the 1979 logo independently and had not seen the claimant’s designs. Subconscious copying could not be inferred from a general resemblance which was equally consistent with independent creation, particularly where only broad design features could have been retained after more than a decade.
5. Applying the principles stated in Sawkins v Hyperion Records Limited [2005] EWCA (Civ) 565, copyright did not prevent coincidental creation of a similar work and infringement required a direct or indirect causal link. Since copying was not established, the 2002 reworking also did not infringe. It was unnecessary to decide the further issues that would have arisen if copying had been proved.