Anonymized Summary of Approved Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

The Claimants (two corporate rights‑holders) allege that an animated series produced and distributed by the Defendants ("Wolfoo") copied and communicated short sound recordings ("Audio Clips") from the Claimants' successful children's series ("Peppa Pig"). The claim, served in January 2022, covers alleged infringements by copying and by communication to the public across multiple territories. The present opinion concerns an application by the Claimants for summary judgment on the discrete issue of alleged infringement of copyright in certain sound recordings (the "SJ Application"). The summary judgment application was heard after disclosure of witness and expert material, the Defendants did not attend the hearing in person and the court proceeded on the papers and oral argument by the Claimants' counsel.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether summary judgment is appropriate on the Claimants' claim for infringement of copyright in certain sound recordings (the Audio Clips) by copying and by communication to the public.
2. Whether the Defendants have a realistic prospect of successfully defending the sound recording claims on the grounds pleaded (including subsistence/ownership of the recordings, adequacy of evidential comparison, foreign law differences and limitation).
3. Whether the Fourth Defendant is liable as a joint tortfeasor or accessory for infringements by the First Defendant, and if so for what periods (pre‑issue and/or post‑issue).
4. Whether the court may apply English law or, alternatively, rely on the presumption of similarity between English law and relevant foreign laws when foreign law is not pleaded in detail.

Arguments of the Parties

Claimants' Arguments

• The Claimants own copyright and related rights in discrete Audio Clips used in their episodes; those clips were individually recorded and stored.
• Spectrographic analysis (expert evidence) establishes confirmed matches between Peppa Pig sounds and sounds used in Wolfoo videos; minor post‑production changes do not prevent a finding of copying under relevant authorities.
• The Defendants' own prior material admits that a third‑party contractor copied Peppa Pig sounds and provided them for Wolfoo use; liability for copying and communication is strict.
• The presumption of similarity (and treaty protections) supports applying English law principles to the foreign jurisdictions implicated; no material foreign law differences have been pleaded with conviction.
• The claim is discrete and should be determined now to narrow issues for trial; limitation and disclosure points do not prevent summary determination.

Defendants' Arguments

• The Defence generally denies the claim, while admitting limited use of sounds provided by an independent third‑party contractor.
• The Defendants challenge subsistence and ownership/chain of title of the alleged sound recordings and say these issues require fuller investigation and disclosure at trial.
• The Defendants dispute the reliability and sufficiency of the Claimants' expert methodology and contend they lacked time/opportunity to instruct their own expert.
• They argue that foreign law (where infringement occurred or was communicated) governs and that material differences may exist with English law; accordingly, trial is needed to resolve foreign law and factual issues.
• They rely on limitation and other procedural/contention points to resist summary judgment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by applying the established summary judgment framework to the discrete sound recording claim. It considered the procedural history, the evidence served (witness statements and expert reports), and the parties' pleadings. Key analytical steps were:

• Principles: The court applied the Easyair/Swain framework: ask whether the Claimants had a realistic (not fanciful) prospect of success and whether there were compelling reasons for trial rather than summary determination.
• Choice of law/presumption of similarity: The court accepted that the Defendants had put foreign law in issue but held that it was fair and reasonable to apply the presumption of similarity (Brownlie) to conclude that foreign law was unlikely to differ materially from English law on phonogram protection, reinforced by international treaty regimes (Rome Convention/TRIPS/WPPT) and EU harmonisation for EU Member States.
• Subsistence and authorship: The court analysed the nature of the Audio Clips and held that copyright in a sound recording protects the recording itself (originality in the artistic sense is not required). The court accepted the Claimants' evidence (schedules and witness statement) tracing production arrangements and title, relying on multi‑factorial tests for identifying the producer.
• Ownership/chain of title: The court found the Claimants' chain of title evidence cogent and corroborated; Defendants' challenges (e.g. lack of written contracts) did not raise a realistic prospect of defeating ownership at summary judgment.
• Copying: The court accepted the expert spectrogram analysis showing confirmed matches between Peppa Pig sounds and Wolfoo sounds, and treated admitted use by a third‑party contractor as irrelevant to strict liability for copying. The court rejected Defendants' assertions about compression, post‑production changes and lack of opportunity to instruct experts as unsubstantiated.
• Communication to the public: Applying the statutory provision and authorities, the court found that communication to the public requires "targeting"; it accepted the Claimants' evidence (including the Defendants' own statistics) that Wolfoo targeted and reached UK and worldwide audiences and therefore rejected the Defendants' no‑targeting defence.
• Limitation and other procedural points: The court found no realistic prospect of success for the Defendants on limitation arguments or other procedural objections (disclosure, narrowed pleaded case), considering proportionality and the availability of alternative evidence to prove recordings.
• Accessory/secondary liability: The court analysed the Fourth Defendant's role (owner/director/CEO with managerial control) and concluded that, on the evidence, there was no realistic defence to accessory liability for post‑issue infringements; it was not possible to determine pre‑issue accessory liability finally on summary judgment.

Holding and Implications

SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED for the Claimants on the sound recording copyright claim to the extent of the expert's findings of confirmed matches between the compared Peppa Pig and Wolfoo sounds.

Direct effects:

• Judgment is entered against the First Defendant (the entity that created and uploaded the Wolfoo videos) for the confirmed matches identified by the Claimants' expert.
• Judgment is entered against the Fourth Defendant for accessory liability in respect of the First Defendant's post‑issue communication of infringing sound recordings; the court declined to enter summary judgment against the Fourth Defendant for pre‑issue accessory liability.
• There will be a consequentials hearing to determine the final terms of relief, including injunctive relief and the specific wording and scope of remedies.

Broader implications: The opinion applies established summary judgment standards and the presumption of similarity for foreign copyright rules in the context of sound recordings; the court did not purport to establish novel precedent beyond its application of those principles to the facts. The practical consequence is a narrowed live dispute for trial focused on remaining issues (including pre‑issue accessory liability and relief quantification).