[2025] EWHC 1954 (IPEC)

Venom Logo 2

As I have said, the Defendants’ case on this work as pleaded was that Mr Lant had created it with the help of an employee of Neat Records, Magda. Mr Bray did not really grapple with the point in his first witness statement, but in his witness statement in reply he accepted that Mr Lant was the sole author of Venom Logo 2. There was no real explanation for Mr Bray’s change of view, save that he said that he accepted that Magda had designed the sleeve layout rather than the logo. However, the Defendants accepted that Mr Lant alone had created Venom Logo 2, which, they said, was based upon Venom Logo 1.

The only question for me, therefore, is whether the work has sufficient originality over Venom Logo 1 to qualify for copyright protection. It was common ground that the test of originality has not changed substantially from the time when these works were made, when the Copyright Act 1956 was in force. The test for originality is low. The law was summarised by Joanna Smith J in Lidl Great Britain Ltd v Tesco Stores Ltd [2023] EWHC 873 (Ch), [2023] F.S.R. in relation to an extremely simple design which was the latest iteration of a series of logos. She held:

“282 Copyright only protects works which are original in the sense that they are the author’s own creation. The test for originality was considered by the European

Court of Justice in Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08) EU:C:2009:465; [2010] F.S.R. 20 at [39]. A work, and its various parts, will be considered original “provided that they contain elements which are the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the work”. This EU test of originality was further elaborated upon in Cofemel - Sociedade de Vestuario SA v G-Star Raw CV (C-683/17) EU:C:2019:721; [2020] E.C.D.R. 9 at [29]-[31]:

“29.

The concept of “work”…[f]irst…entails that there exist an original subject

matter, in the sense of being the author’s own intellectual creation. Second, classification as a work is reserved to the elements that are the expression of

such creation…

Joanna Smith J’s summary of the law and finding of the subsistence of copyright in Lidl’s extremely simple logo were approved by the Court of Appeal, see [2024] EWCA Civ 262, [2024] FSR 17 at [198]-[191]. At [191] Arnold LJ said:

“The degree of creativity involved in the creation of the [work] may have been low, but it was not a purely mechanical exercise, nor was the result dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints which left no room for creative freedom.”

I consider that there are some significant differences between the versions of the Venom Logo in dispute. The initial V in version 2 is larger than in version 1, more exaggerated and of a more unusual shape. In particular, there is a striking cross stroke, which reminds me of the shape of a whale’s fluke, at the top of the left-hand leg of the V, and the bottom of the V is much more sharply pointed than in Version 1. In addition, the N and M are both much spikier at the top and the bottom of the letters than in version 1.

In my view it is abundantly clear that there was a sufficient degree of creativity involved in the creation of Venom Logo 2. It had original features, especially in the amendments to the shape of the V, the N and the M, which I consider to be striking, distinctive, and to add substantially to the overall design. My view of the amount of work which went into the logo is supported by some sketches produced by Mr Lant, which show a variety of different forms of the logo, suggesting a wide degree of artistic freedom. There was additional evidence of use of variations of the logo. For instance, in my view the Venom logo used on the Bloodlust single in 1982 was something of a hybrid between versions 1 and 2. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in finding that the creation of Venom Logo 2 would not have been a purely mechanical exercise, nor was the result dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints which left no room for creative freedom.

In the circumstances, I find that copyright did subsist in Venom Logo 2, and in light of the Defendants’ sensible concessions, I find that Mr Lant is the owner of that copyright.