Intellectual Property Enterprise Court

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

Fecha: 24-Jul-2025

Witnesses

Witnesses

36.

The Claimants called two witnesses:

Ms Martin is, as I have said, a highly successful visual artist. She gave evidence of her background, her international success, her commercial work, the production of the Work and the assignment of copyright in the Work to Found the Found, how she became aware of the First Label, her communications with the Defendants, and the damage she says she has suffered. Ms Martin was made available for cross-examination, but Mr Patch did not wish to ask her any questions. I accept her evidence.

ii)

Mr John Duff is Director of Marketing for Artlogic Limited, a role he has held since 2023. Artlogic is a software as a service company providing software for galleries, artists and collectors. He gave evidence of working with Ms Martin to produce a tote bag for Artlogic’s 25^th birthday party. He also gave evidence that Ms Martin later created a mural for Artlogic’s office in 2023. Mr Duff was made available for cross-examination but Mr Patch did not wish to ask him any questions. I accept his evidence in relation to the matters outlined above. I do not accept unreservedly the final two paragraphs of Mr Duff’s evidence for the reasons I set out below: these paragraphs relate to Mr Duff’s opinion of what he would have thought had he encountered the Products in a supermarket. This was supposition and/or opinion evidence, and not something on which Mr Duff could usefully give evidence.

37.

As stated above, I have not admitted the witness statement of Mr Degese, filed on behalf of the Defendants. Mr Patch gave a witness statement in which he gave evidence about his background, and his lack of knowledge of Ms Martin or her Work or Style until she first contacted him on 12 April 2020. Mr Patch was cross-examined skilfully by leading counsel for the Claimants. I also asked Mr Patch a number of questions. I consider him to have been an honest witness who was doing his best to assist the Court. I accept the evidence he gave in his witness statement, and in his answers to questions from counsel for the Claimants and from me.

38.

Following the conclusion of Mr Patch’s cross-examination, I provided him with the opportunity to set out his case. He did this from the witness box having been sworn to tell the truth. Whilst this approach will not be appropriate in all cases, I considered this to be the appropriate course in this case to ensure Mr Patch (and GM Drinks) had a fair trial, and given Mr Patch’s reticence up to that point to speak from the body of the Court. Counsel for the Claimants did not object to this course. She did, however, make closing submissions that much of what Mr Patch said was irrelevant to the proceedings, and ought not be relied on as evidence in the proceedings. I accept that submission, and have had it squarely in mind in reaching my conclusions in this case.

39.

I consider that Mr Patch and GM Drinks had a fair hearing with appropriate opportunities to test the Claimants’ evidence, and to present their own position. Neither side suggested otherwise. Mr Patch was offered opportunities to question the Claimants’ witnesses, to ask questions of the Court, to address the Court, and to take breaks as and when he needed them. This was evidently not an easy experience for him, but both the Claimants’ counsel and the Court did their best to assist. I should add that this in no way compromised the Claimants’ position – they were represented by specialist leading and junior counsel together with specialist, experienced solicitors, and because of the absence of representatives for the Defendants, had significantly more time to address the Court than they would otherwise have had.