Partial win for artist in UK wine label copyright case

The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) has issued a mixed judgment in Martin & Ors v Bodegas San Huberto SA & Ors [2025] EWHC 1827 (IPEC), a dispute concerning the unauthorised use of artist Shantell Martin’s distinctive wall drawing on wine labels sold in the UK. While the court found copyright infringement and passing off in relation to one wine label, the artist and her company were unsuccessful in claims relating to two other labels and faced a substantial limit on the available financial remedies. The moral rights claim hit a snag as it was not included in the list of issues.

The original artwork

Background

Shantell Martin is a renowned British visual artist known for her abstract, black-and-white line drawings. In 2017, she created a large-scale wall drawing, Someday We Can, for an exhibition at the SKG Museum in Buffalo, New York. Copyright in the work was later assigned to her company, Found the Found LLC.

In the UK, Argentinian wine producer Bodegas San Huberto (BSH), together with UK importer GM Drinks Ltd and its director Mr Marc Patch, sold bottles of wine bearing labels that featured artwork visually resembling Someday We Can. These were referred to in proceedings as the First, Second and Third Label Products.

The Claimants alleged:

• Copyright infringement in relation to each of the three labels;

• Infringement of Ms Martin’s moral right to be identified as the author; and

• Passing off.

The original artwork followed by the First, Second and Third Labels

The court’s findings

David Stone (sitting as Deputy High Court Judge) found:

1. Copyright infringement for the First Label only: The First Label copied a substantial part of Ms Martin’s work.

2. No infringement for Second and Third Labels: These labels were held not to have reproduced a substantial part of the work.

3. Moral rights infringement: Found only in relation to the First Label, due to the lack of attribution and implied endorsement. (But this claim was not included in the list of issues so the judge noted that it could not be run at trial).

4. Passing off: Also successful, but only in relation to the First Label. The judge found there was sufficient misrepresentation to suggest endorsement by Ms Martin.

Remedies

There is a risk that this victory could become someone Pyrrhic. Although there was a split trial, which means that the financial remedies will be determined at a later date, the court gave a strong indication of the anticipated remedies available.

Damages denied under section 97 CDPA

The judge ruled that because the Defendants “did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted” in the First Label image, the Claimants were not entitled to damages for infringement. This interpretation may prove controversial. The relevant question under section 97(1) is whether the Defendants knew or had reason to believe that copyright subsisted in the work, not whether they knew who owned it. The line drawing is clearly an artwork. To say that the Defendants had no knowledge or reason to believe that copyright subsisted in the artwork is troubling.

“I am satisfied that, in relation to the First Label Products, the Defendants did not know and had no reason to believe that copyright subsisted in the image that they used.” at [100]

Low financial exposure

The total profits on the First Label Products were £924. As a result, the Claimants elected to pursue an enquiry into damages, but the section 97 finding significantly narrows their entitlement.

The judge indicated that the issue of quantum (i.e. determining the amount of damages payable) should be considered by the the IPEC's small claims track - where there is effectively no costs award and the damages are capped at £10,000.

What does this mean?

This judgment offers a cautionary tale from both sides.

For artists, it reinforces that protection is available but only where copying is clear and substantial. The loss on two-thirds of the claim shows that courts will examine the level of similarity and derivation closely. The decision also underscores the importance of properly asserting and documenting rights as soon as unauthorised use is discovered.

For businesses, it’s a reminder that ignorance of copyright may limit liability, but not eliminate it. However, the interpretation of section 97 here is contentious. Knowing that a visually striking image was used commercially without any attribution or licence should raise red flags. Whether a court should excuse infringement simply because the identity of the author is unknown merits further scrutiny.

Overall, this case highlights the tension between commercial use of contemporary art and the robust enforcement of IP rights—especially where international use and distribution is involved.

To find out more about the issues raised in this blog contact Rosie Burbidge.