Copyright law: a case of ‘substantial part’ and importers liability

A recent decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (“IPEC”) which considered whether wine bottle labels imported into the UK infringed copyright, demonstrates there is fine line between ‘copying’ and ‘inspiration’.

Shantell Martin and another v Bodegas San Huberto SA and others [2025] EWHC 1827, raises important questions about the scope of copyright protection, the meaning of “substantial part” in copyright law, and the liability of importers under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“CDPA”).

The case: Shantell Martin and another v Bodegas San Huberto SA and others [2025]

The case concerns allegations of copyright infringement and passing off brought by visual artist Shantell Martin and her company, Found the Found LLC (“Claimants”), against Argentinian winery Bodegas San Huberto SA, UK distributor GM Drinks Ltd, and its director Marc Patch (“Defendants”).

The dispute centred on wine labels said to reproduce elements of Shantell Martin’s distinctive black-and-white line drawings, originally created for a 2017 exhibition in New York.

The dispute

Shantell Martin, known internationally for her graphic line-work and collaborations with major brands, assigned copyright in her large-scale wall drawing to Found the Found LLC in 2021.

Bodegas San Huberto commissioned wine labels in 2018 which were later imported into the UK by GM Drinks. Examples of the wine labels are shown below:

Martin discovered similarities between her work and the first label used on the bottles sold in the UK, leading to complaints in 2020. Subsequent redesigns produced the second and third labels, but Ms Martin maintained Bodegas San Huberto had continued to copy her style and misrepresented endorsement.

The Claimants therefore pursued proceedings in the IPEC for copyright infringement, infringement of moral rights, and passing off.

What is substantial part in copyright law?

“Substantial part” in copyright law focuses on the qualitative element of a creative work, rather than a quantitative amount.

The court applied the leading case on copying of a substantial part (Infopaq) which previously summarised the test for this as follows: “It has long been the position in domestic law that what is substantial is a question to be answered qualitatively rather than quantitatively. In Infopaq the court said that parts of a work are entitled to the same protection as the work as a whole. But the parts in question must “contain elements which are the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the work.”

Furthermore, the House of Lords in Designers Guild v Russell Williams clarified that once copying is inferred, the substantial part has been taken.

The present ruling of judge David Stone highlights the overlap between the test for originality and the test for substantial part. The key question is whether the portion taken reflects the author’s own intellectual creation.

The decision reinforces that quality rather than quantity is key: a substantial part implies a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment, and it may consist of a combination of features rather than a single element (Designers Guild). Altered or partial copying may still amount to infringement, as was the case with the first label, which was an altered copy of Martin’s work.

Importers copyright infringement liability

A striking aspect of the case was the liability of the wine importer (GM Drinks and Mr Patch) who were unaware of Shantell Martin’s work until she contacted them on 13 April 2020.

Under section 18 of the CDPA, importation through issuing copies to the public amounts to primary infringement of copyright and imposes strict liability. The importers could not, therefore, rely on ignorance of copyright subsistence.

The court noted that while an “innocent infringer” defence exists, it is narrow. GM Drinks may not be liable for damages prior to the date of notification (shortly after 13 April 2020) if the infringement was innocent. Defendants must show they did not know copyright subsisted in the work, which is a difficult argument in practice.

What is passing off in copyright law?

The judgment also touched on passing off, which does not require knowledge and may apply where copyright or design rights do not.

To succeed in a passing off claim, three elements must be shown:

• The claimant has goodwill in the UK;
• The defendant has made a misrepresentation of its products as being the claimant’s or being somehow endorsed by the claimant; and
• The claimant has suffered or is likely to suffer damage as a result of such misrepresentation.

GM Drinks was found liable to Ms Martin for passing off the first label products as endorsed by Ms Martin. Bodegas was found not to be liable as it had not committed any infringing acts in the UK. This underscores the potential scope of passing off in cases involving product presentation and branding.

Key takeaways

The decision in this case illustrates the fine line between copying and inspiration.

• Copyright infringement in the UK is a strict liability offence: a party can be liable even without knowledge or intent.
• An importer may be held responsible for infringing products brought into the UK, regardless of whether they were involved in the copying, manufacturing, or design process.
• Innocent infringers should act swiftly in removing any infringing products once put on notice to reduce exposure to damages.

For brand owners, the case serves as a reminder to prepare carefully when navigating any potential infringement, to define issues precisely, and to act swiftly when new claims arise.

In practical terms, legal practitioners should ensure that:

• The list of copied elements is clear and not contrived;
• Samples of the infringing products can be demonstrated at court;
• Claims are tightly focused (in IPEC, proportionality is key); and
• Moral rights and flagrancy claims should be included early, and any new issues must be raised promptly.

How Hamlins can help

Hamlins’ Commercial and Tech team supports client across multiple industries to deliver intellectual property, trade mark, commercial, regulatory and structuring, data and data protection expertise. Please get in touch to find out how we can help.