Pyrrha Design Inc. v. Plum and Posey Inc., 2022 FCA 7
Justice Dawson; Justice de Montigny; Justice Rivoalen - 2022-01-13
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
Pyrrha claims copyright in each of the [nine pieces of jewellery] and asserts that the respondent infringed the copyrighted designs. For reasons cited as 2019 FC 129, the Federal Court dismissed Pyrrha’s claim for copyright infringement. While the Court found that the Pyrrha Designs were original and subject to copyright protection, it also found that Plum and Posey did not reproduce a “substantial part” of the skill and judgment evidenced in the Pyrrha Designs. ... In my view, the conclusion of the Federal Court that the Pyrrha designs were relatively simple copyrighted works was amply supported on the evidence before the Court. ... In the impugned paragraph of its reasons, paragraph 134, the Federal Court acknowledged that the perspective of a layperson “may be useful” but went on to state that such perspective “does not take one all the way.” Importantly, the Court continued: “[t]he real question is whether there are substantial similarities based on the relevant parts of works, including latent similarities not necessarily obvious to the layperson that may influence how a layperson experiences the work.” I see no error of law in the Court’s reasoning about the role of the layperson. ... The Court rejected Pyrrha’s contention that the works should only be examined from two to three feet away because that is the likely spacing from a purchaser’s perspective. ... For these reasons I would dismiss the appeal, with costs.
Decision relates to:
- A-98-19 - PYRRHA DESIGN INC. v. PLUM AND POSEY INC. AND ADRINNA M. HARDY which is an appeal from 2019 FC 129 in T-2022-13