The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner—
(a)possesses in the course of a business,
(b)sells or lets for hire, or offers or exposes for sale or hire,
(c)in the course of a business exhibits in public or distributes, or
(d)distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of the work.
Cases considering section 23 26
[2026] EWHC 2165 (Ch) · 13 August 2026
The court held that secondary infringement required actual knowledge or reason to believe that the specific articles were infringing copies, which Temu lacked before removal. (see paras [281]-[297])
Cited only.
The court applied the exhibition and distribution limb of s. 23 and held that Temu lacked the requisite knowledge or reason to believe before the listings were removed. (see paras [210], [282]-[297])
[2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) · 4 November 2025
Applies the possession and dealing prohibitions only to an article which is an infringing copy. The claim failed because the final model weights did not contain or store copies of the Copyright Works. (see paras [546]-[550]; [599]-[604])
[2025] EWHC 1827 (IPEC) · 24 July 2025
Applies section 23(a) to possession of infringing copies in the course of business. GM Drinks possessed the First Label products, but liability was confined to dealing after notification of the infringement; the Second and Third Labels were not infringing copies (see paras [57]; [105]; [107]-[111]).
Applies section 23(b) to selling, offering or exposing infringing copies for sale. GM Drinks was liable for relevant post-notification dealings in the First Label products, but not for the Second or Third Labels (see paras [57]; [106]-[111]).
6 more judgments, and what each says about section 23, are in the
case-law panel in the full Act.