Copyright case ferments trouble

Copyright case ferments trouble: a cautionary tale for UK importers

In a useful but potentially concerning reminder for retailers, the High Court recently held a wine importer liable for infringement of copyright in works copied on the labels of imported wines (Martin -v- Bodegas San Huberto SA [2025] EWHC 1827 (IPEC).

The claim

The claim concerned a wall artwork created by artist Shantell Martin MBE for a solo exhibition at the SKG Museum in New York in 2015 (the Work), in which copyright had subsequently been assigned to Found the Found LLC. Ms Martin and Found the Found LLC argued that the Work had been replicated on a wine bottle of a product created by an Argentinian winery, Bodegas San Huberto (BSH) and imported and sold in the UK by GM Drinks (GM), a UK based wine importer and distributor and the exclusive distributor of the products in question. 

BSH had instructed a designer to design the bottle labels to be exported from Argentina, and GM made clear during the proceedings that they had not undertaken intellectual property clearances for the wine imported, on the simple (and perhaps unsurprising) basis that it had assumed the manufacturer would do this.  

Ms Martin and Found the Found LLC issued proceedings in the High Court on the basis of alleged copyright infringement, as well as a claim by Ms Martin for infringement of her moral rights and passing off in relation to her right to be identified as the author of the Work. Proceedings were also issued in Argentina.

The High Court proceedings were issued against BSH and GM, as well as against the director of GM, Marc Patch, personally.

The Court’s decision

The Court concluded that, although two of the three labels under consideration had moved far enough away from the Work such as to not infringe any copyright in the Work, one of the labels (the First Label) was “clearly a substantial reproduction of the Work”. The judgment concluded that GM would be liable for copyright infringement in respect of the First Label.

The Court declined to determine the question of moral rights infringement, on the basis of a technicality that this had not been included in the List of Issues before the Court, but did reach a conclusion on passing off. In relation to passing off, Ms Martin had argued two bases: firstly, based on false endorsement (the concept that the labels gave rise to a false message that the wine had been in some way endorsed or approved by Ms Martin) and secondly, on the basis of inherent deceptiveness (where the labels were inherently likely to deceive consumers). 

The Court determined that, in relation to the First Label, GM was liable for passing off on the basis that Ms Martin had the requisite goodwill in the Work (evidenced by, for example, her social media presence and her participation in a show at the Tate Modern) and it was likely that damage had been caused to Ms Martin’s existing endorsement business.

Comment and impact on retailers

Although not a novel concept in intellectual property law, this case comes as a recent warning to those importing products in the United Kingdom that they can and will be held liable for intellectual property infringements by counterparts based outside of the UK. Common though it may be for importers to trust foreign manufacturers to be responsible for intellectual property matters, it is clear that there is a significant risk of the Court taking a hard stance and finding those UK based companies liable for infringements in relation to importation and sale.

It is a timely reminder to UK importers to avoid simply relying on a relationship of trust and confidence with their manufacturers, but to instead undertake adequate due diligence as well as seeking to put indemnity arrangements or other contractual protections in place to protect against infringements on the part of the manufacturer.