The owners of the Peppa Pig franchise recently made a successful application for summary judgment in the High Court after a Vietnamese company used Peppa Pig audio clips in another children’s cartoon.
Hasbro and Astley Baker Davies, the creators of Peppa Pig, filed claims against Sconnect Co Ltd, the creators of Wolfoo, for copyright infringement, trade mark infringement and passing off back in 2022.
In a recent summary judgment, the judge found that SConnect had no real prospect of defending the claims that it had copied audio clips from Peppa Pig and used them in Wolfoo.
Jurisdiction
SConnect is a company based in Vietnam. However, as Wolfoo is shared globally on various online platforms, the claims involved allegations that the infringement had occurred across multiple jurisdictions.
It is unusual for an English court to make a decision in multi-jurisdictional claims because of the potential of conflicting local laws. However, the court can apply a “presumption of similarity” where there appears to be no material differences between English law and the laws in other jurisdictions.
In this case, the judge confirmed that this presumption could apply as the owners of Wolfoo had not put forward any evidence to suggest there were any substantial differences in copyright law between the jurisdictions.
Copyright
SConnect accepted that Peppa Pig sound recordings were used in some of the Wolfoo videos but argued that copyright did not exist in the sound as the clips taken from the Peppa Pig episodes were already copies from another larger recording. They argued that copyright would apply to the larger recording (as the original), rather than the shorter clips used.
The judge rejected this argument as the claimant was able to put forward evidence that the sounds were recorded as individual audio clips and then added to Peppa Pig episodes.
The judge also confirmed that copyright in a sound recording protects the recording itself, rather than the underlying sound. This differs from other forms of creative work and meant that members of the public did not need to download or directly receive the audio clips for infringement to have taken place. Instead, there was an infringement because the audio clips that had been copied from Peppa Pig episodes and used in Wolfoo videos were targeted to the public in the UK and the other countries.
The judge therefore concluded that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and granted summary judgment against SConnect.
However, the judge was unable to give summary judgment against the CEO of SConnect personally. This is because the CEO claimed that the copying had been done by an independent third-party contractor without his knowledge, and the judge was unable to conclude that the CEO has no prospects of successfully defending the claim against him.
Comments
This judgment is good news for brands that distribute content internationally as it shows that English courts are willing to resolve multi-jurisdictional copyright disputes.
It also serves as a good reminder that brands can be liable for copyright infringement carried out by an independent contractor. Directors and those with authority should be satisfied that creative works are original before approving their use as they can face personal liability if they are deemed to have authorised the infringing act.
If you have any questions as a result of this article, please get in touch with Cathrine Ripley at cathrine.ripley@fsp-law.com or please contact our Commercial, IP & Technology Team.
This article is for information only and does not constitute legal advice. We recommend seeking professional advice before taking any action on the information provided. If you would like to discuss your specific circumstances, please feel free to contact us on 0118 951 6200.
