Claim No: IP-2022-000053 - [2025] EWHC 1827 (IPEC)

To give some idea of the scale of the Work, Ms Martin is shown working on it in this image:

Ms Martin has developed a distinctive artistic style (to which I return below) which she has used in collaboration with various household name brands, including Puma, Jose Cuervo, The North Face, Tiffany & Co and the Financial Times. She has done so with significant success.

The First Defendant, Bodegas San Huberto (BSH), is a winery based in Argentina which produces wine, including for sale in the United Kingdom. It produced wines under three different labels as shown below:

All products labelled as above (together, the Products) were exported from Argentina to the United Kingdom. Whilst different grape varieties were marketed under the various labels, nothing turns on this.

The Second Defendant, GM Drinks Limited (GM Drinks), is a UK-based wine importer and distributor, which imported into, and offered for sale and sold in, the United Kingdom quantities of wine bearing the First, Second and Third Labels. GM Drinks was the exclusive distributor of the Products in the United Kingdom. The Third Defendant, Mr Marc Patch (Mr Patch) is a director of GM Drinks, together with his wife. Mr Patch runs GM Drinks.

The Claimants claim:

As will appear below, the reality is slightly more complicated, in that it is Found the Found which claims copyright infringement, and Ms Martin who claims infringement of her moral rights and passing off.

Ms Stephanie Wickenden and Mr Stefano Braschi appeared on behalf of the Claimants instructed by McCarthy Denning. At my suggestion, Mr Braschi took on some of the advocacy in the case.

BSH did not appear and was not represented. Mr Patch represented himself, and, with the Court’s permission, GM Drinks. Mr Patch was offered considerable assistance by the Claimants’ legal team. I am confident that, overall, Mr Patch was given an appropriate opportunity to put his case and that of GM Drinks to the Court (I say more about this below).

In preparing this judgment, it has not been necessary for me to decide any novel issues of law – this judgment is therefore based entirely on applying known principles to the facts of this case.

Whilst the allegations of copyright infringement relate to the whole of the United Kingdom, passing off as a tort relates to England and Wales. However, for ease, and because this is how it was submitted to me by the Claimants, I use “United Kingdom” each time because the difference does not matter on the facts of this case.