IP-2023-000120 - [2025] EWHC 1793 (IPEC)

Does the Notting Hill Word Sign substantially copy the Logo? The Claimants rely on the Defendants’ use of the Notting Hill Word Sign as set out in this judgment and a further version in Annex 13 of the POC. The difference between the two versions is that the text in the version in Annex 13 is on four lines and the text for the Notting Hill Word Sign as set out above is on three lines. They also rely on the Camden Hill Sign set out above.

I consider the visual difference between the Defendants’ Signs and the Logo when considered side by side is striking. The elements relied on by NC-S are the lower-case t, the full stop, the left justification and the font.

Three of those elements are not copied in the Notting Hill Word Sign which also uses Shopper not Shopping. Two of those elements are not copied in the Camden Town sign which also uses Camden Town.

Whilst the words themselves are to be ignored when considering the artistic copyright subsisting in the Logo, when making a qualitative assessment about whether the Defendants signs have appropriated a substantial part NC-S’s artistic copyright the entirety of the Defendants signs need to be considered against those elements which entitle NC-S to copyright protection. As Arnold LJ said in THJ only a close copy would infringe.

The Notting Hill Word Sign does not use the lower case “t”. It does not even use sentence case but instead is made up entirely of capital letters. That is significant given that the lower-case t is relied on for the artistic copyright. The lower-case t is obviously not copied when all the words are in capital letters. The look is entirely different.

The Notting Hill Word Sign uses a different font. One of the creative choices relied on and a distinguishing artistic feature was the Arial font used in the Logo.

The Notting Hill Word Sign is justified to the left but is on three lines not four lines. This is again a significant difference given there are only 5 words overall.

The alternative version of the Notting Hill Word Sign relied on by the Claimants had all the same features but was instead on four lines not three. This would inevitably mean it was closer to the Logo but still critically it was all capital letters, no lower-case t and used a different font.The layout, font and appearance are therefore different.

The Camden Town Sign is both more similar to the Logo and different given it relates to an entirely different part of London. Mr Marshall argues it might be thought to be some sort of brand extension. However, the differences are equally marked. It features capital letters at the beginning of each word and is in a different font.

Given the nature of the artistic copyright work and those features that were relied on as giving rise to the copyright as setting the Logo apart as a creative work, I am not satisfied that the Defendants have in fact copied a substantial part of the copyright work.

Given the low degree of creativity, the scope of the protection conferred by the copyright is correspondingly narrow and on the basis of a qualitative assessment I am not satisfied that these are close copies. The Defendants are not therefore liable for copyright infringement by their use of the Defendants’ Signs.

If follows that if there was no copying it cannot be flagrant within the meaning of section 97(2) of CDPA 1988.

This was conceded by the Claimants in closing. There was no joint venture.