[2025] EWHC 1954 (IPEC)

As I have said, it was accepted on each side that the conclusions on infringement would follow those of subsistence and ownership. Mr Dunn expressed the view in evidence that all of the artworks in issue were produced by the band and could be used by any member of the band. He thought that was made plain by the presence of copyright notices in the form “© Venom” on the albums and older merchandise, such as that produced by Razmataz in 1996. However, as I have said, this was not either side’s pleaded case. Also, as I have mentioned, in the 1990s the members of the band discussed entering into an agreement to share use of the band’s artwork, but that did not happen. On the contrary, there is no suggestion that at any time Mr Lant authorised the Defendants to use his copyright works, or that Mr Bray authorised Mr Lant and Razmataz to use his works.

Pictures of the merchandise offered for sale or sold by the First Defendant with Mr Bray or his company’s authority are annexed to the Particulars of Claim. The pictures are not of high quality, and I have not seen samples of the merchandise. However, it does seem to me that some of Mr Lant’s copyright works are reproduced on the goods. No doubt that is a matter which can be clarified between the parties in due course, as can the question of the date when such infringements first occurred (included as a separate point in the List of Issues), as the only real evidence before me on that point was the licence granted to the First Defendant by Mr Bray which was dated 1 November 2023.

The pictures of Razmataz’s merchandise annexed to the Defence and Counterclaim are equally hard to make out, but any use of Venom Logo 1 on such goods will have infringed Mr Bray’s copyright. Again, there was insufficient evidence before me as to the timing of any acts of infringement, despite the point being raised in the List of Issues, and the parties will have to deal with that in due course. It was no part of the Defendants’ pleaded case that use of Venom Logo 2 would infringe the copyright in Venom Logo 1, so that only the Claimant and Third Party’s use of Venom Logo 1 itself will infringe.