Copyright infringement in handbag designs
Yes, you are right!
The answer is Yes, the designs were found to be too similar, an infringement did occur. The Federal Court found that Spotlight had substantially reproduced the original artistic works of Bed Bath ‘N’ Table.
The Court found that:
the substance and essence of the Bed Bath & Table artistic work lies in the combined effect of the artistic elements that comprise it; and
even though there are discernible differences between the Spotlight product and the Bed Bath & Table artistic work, the combination of features in the design arrangement, background and overall colour scheme, taken as a whole, qualitatively reproduces a substantial part of the “look and feel” of the Bed Bath & Table artistic work and has sufficient objective similarity with the Bed Bath & Table artistic work.
However, in this instance Spotlight was able to successfully apply the ‘innocent infringement’ defence under s 115(3) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and reduce the amount of damages that were payable to Bed Bath ‘N’ Table to 15% of profits made. To succeed in a claim of copyright infringement, Bed Bath ‘N’ Table needed to establish that Spotlight knew (or ought reasonably to have known) that making and importing the similar products constituted an infringement of Bed Bath ‘N’ Table’s copyright.
The Court heard that both retailers had separately engaged the same overseas fabric supplier to manufacture its products. Although both parties gave different accounts of how they transacted with the supplier and ordered the fabric, it was ultimately found that Spotlight had relied on the supplier to advise what fabric samples Spotlight could and could not use and was not aware of the copyright infringement until this was brought to their attention by Bed Bath ‘N’ Table.
Accordingly, Spotlight was only liable for sales of the products that had occurred after it had been put on notice regarding the copyright infringement. In determining the amount of damages payable, the Federal Court also acknowledged that Spotlight had initiated a recall of the infringing products and took steps to stop further sales in a timely manner.
Case citation: The Dempsey Group Pty Ltd v Spotlight Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 2016.