Peppa Pig V Wolfoo: Clash Of The Cartoons

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Law Firm: Marks & Clerk
• Subject Matter: Consumer Protection, Intellectual Property, Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment, IT and Internet, Consumer Law, Copyright, Trademark, Media & Entertainment Law, Advertising, Marketing & Branding
• Author: Ms Claire Chalmers and Gina Lodge
• Published date: 20 March 2023

In its recent decision in Entertainment One UK Ltd & Anor v Sconnect Co Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 3295 (Ch), the High Court considered whether English courts could have jurisdiction in cases involving intellectual property infringements on internationally accessible internet platforms.

Background

The First Claimant, Entertainment One, is the owner of Peppa Pig, the animated children's TV series featuring the eponymous anthropomorphic pig and her family. The Second Claimant is the company formed by the creators of the character.

In 2018, an animated series called Wolfoo featuring an anthropomorphic wolf and his family debuted on YouTube. The First Defendant, a Vietnamese studio known as Sconnect Co Ltd, and Second Defendant, US company Sconnect Media LLC, admitted responsibility for creating the Wolfoo series and uploading them to YouTube.

The Claimants' substantive claims against the Defendants were for alleged:

• Infringement of copyright in i) the Claimants' artistic works (being the visual representations of the Peppa Pig character and the scenery and backgrounds to each episode), and ii) the Claimants' audio clips repeated in Peppa Pig episodes;
• Infringement of the Claimants' three UK registered trade marks and three EU registered trade marks for PEPPA PIG word marks and various PEPPA PIG device marks registered in Classes 9 and/or 41; and
• Passing off in relation to use by the Defendants of elements that copied or mimicked the Peppa Pig indicia, so as to deceive the average consumer into thinking that Wolfoo comes from the same commercial source as Peppa Pig or is otherwise commercially connected with the makers of Peppa Pig.

However, this decision related to two interim applications - one by the Defendants, and one by the Claimants. The focus of this article is the Defendants' application for a declaration that the English court had no jurisdiction to try the claims brought against the Defendants; alternatively, the court should not exercise any jurisdiction which it may have. The stated reasons for the declaration were (i) "the service is defective"; and (ii) "the Defendants do not target the UK market". Of particular interest is the question of whether the Defendants had targeted the UK market.

The law on targeting

Intellectual property rights are territorial in nature. As such, in order to establish infringement of such rights in the UK, it is necessary to demonstrate that the alleged infringing acts took place in the UK. This can be difficult in...