UK: Star Wars Episode III - English Supreme Court decision: A New Hope for the enforcement of non-EU copyrights, or a Phantom Menace for UK-domiciled entities?

Last Updated: 16 September 2011
Article by Daniel Hart

Originally published 13 September 2011

Keywords: copyright, intellectual property, Star Wars, infringement, Lucasfilm Limited & others v Ainsworth & another,

The English Supreme Court has ruled that the English Courts are able to hear claims for infringement of US copyright brought against UK-domiciled defendants – and should do so.

The scenario:




The parties:

  1. Lucasfilm Ltd (US)
  2. Star Wars Productions Ltd (English)
  3. Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd (US)


  1. Andrew Ainsworth (English)
  2. Shepperton Design Studios Ltd (English)

Nature of both proceedings:

Jurisdiction clause:

Alternative jurisdiction:

Parallel proceedings?




Article 2 (Brussels I Regulation)

The parties:

  1. Lucasfilm Ltd (US)
  2. Star Wars Productions Ltd (English)
  3. Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd (US)


  1. Andrew Ainsworth (English)
  2. Shepperton Design Studios Ltd (English)

Infringement of intellectual property rights


Non-EU Member State (United States)

Yes, although default judgment already obtained in the US proceedings for US infringement




The decision of the English Supreme Court in Lucasfilm Limited & others v Ainsworth & another [2011] UKSC 39 represents the latest plot development in the Star Wars litigation saga.

Although that dispute concerns the alleged infringement of intellectual property ("IP") rights, the proceedings have raised a number of general issues of fundamental importance in cross-border litigation.


Two questions arose before the English Supreme Court.

  • The first was a technical point of domestic UK copyright law:

    Were the Stormtrooper helmets utilitarian and so not artistic works, or were they "sculptures" with the benefit of UK copyright protection?
  • The second concerned a question of international jurisdiction:

    Could/should English Courts hear claims for infringement of non-EU (in this case US) copyright, brought against UK-domiciled defendants?

The second issue is the more significant. It arose because the US Court judgment obtained in respect of the US infringement was unenforceable in England. Such questions reflect the international character of not only the Star Wars proceedings, but of modern litigation generally in a brave new "global" world.


The Supreme Court decided:

  • the helmets were not "sculptures" - so there was a defence to the UK copyright infringement claim; but
  • the English Courts were able to hear the claims for breach of US copyright against the UK-domiciled Ainsworth – and should do so.

The decision on the second point can be viewed in two ways:

  • As paving the way for a plethora of infringement claims which utilise the English Courts to give effect to "alien" copyright principles - and thus as a potential Phantom Menace for UK-domiciled entities.


  • As A New Hope for those seeking to enforce non-EU copyrights in an on-line era – providing an effective mechanism for bringing to account UK infringers that might otherwise have escaped retribution.

Further details and analysis


1. The Star Wars dispute features many inter-related elements key to any cross-border epic:

  1. jurisdiction (where one can sue);
  2. governing law (which country's law applies); and
  3. international enforceability (whether a judgment obtained in one country can be enforced in another).

2. In order to view the Supreme Court decision and its implications in context, it is first necessary to explore how the pieces of the international jigsaw fit together.


The clone war

3. The dispute was between Lucasfilm, the owner of the Star Wars IP rights, and Andrew Ainsworth, who originally helped create the Imperial Stormtroopers' helmets and armour.

4. Mr Ainsworth, domiciled in England, set up a website and began selling copies of Stormtrooper merchandise. Lucasfilm alleged infringement.


"A long time ago, in a [Court] far, far away ..."

5. In 2005, Lucasfilm commenced proceedings in California for US infringement.

6. Ainsworth did not contest that claim (much as Obi- Wan refused to defend Darth Vader's lightsaber offensive).

7. Lucasfilm obtained judgment in default. But it had a problem: Ainsworth, and his assets, were in England.


"Meanwhile ..."

8. Lucasfilm then also attacked Ainsworth's rebel base in England. It sought to enforce the US judgment, and also claimed infringement of UK copyright.

The claim to enforce the US judgment

9. As against the attempt to enforce the US judgment, Ainsworth deployed a deflector shield. He was not resident/present in the US, nor had he submitted to the US Court. Thus, he said, the English common law pre-requisites for enforcement were not met.

10. Lucasfilm argued that, in an internet age, Ainsworth was "present" in the US, having set up a website targeting US customers. That argument, however, failed, at first instance and on appeal, so the US judgment was unenforceable.

The claim for UK copyright infringement

11. Lucasfilm's claim for breach of UK copyright failed too (again at first instance and on appeal).

12. Just as Han Solo helped Luke Skywalker destroy the Death Star, Ainsworth too received welcome aid - from a quirky point of UK copyright law. In essence, the Stormtrooper helmets were not "sculptures" since they were utilitarian and not artistic works, so Ainsworth had a defence to the claim.

The claim for US copyright infringement

13. But Lucasfilm had a third attack wave planned - a fresh claim for breach of US copyright brought directly in England. US law governed, so the UK "quirk" was irrelevant. Ainsworth, however, used an old bounty hunter trick: he contested the ability of the English Courts to hear that claim at all.

US copyright infringement - the jurisdiction debate

14. Notwithstanding Ainsworth's attempt to contest jurisdiction, the first instance Judge ruled that the English Courts could hear the claim (and that it succeeded). He noted that public policy might sometimes demand the contrary in respect of certain foreign IP claims – and if so, jurisdiction could be declined on discretionary "forum non conveniens" grounds. However no public policy issue, he said, arose here.

15. The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed and sought to decline jurisdiction. But Lucasfilm, like a Bothan spy, had spotted a problem with the discretionary mechanism mentioned by the Judge. It contravened Owusu v Jackson [2005] (ECJ)1.

16. Under Owusu, if an EU Defendant is sued in his country of domicile (pursuant to Article 2 of the Brussels I Regulation2), there is no "forum non conveniens" discretion available - even if the alternative forum is non-EU. Since Ainsworth was domiciled in England, Owusu posed a real problem.

17. But the Court of Appeal found a way around Owusu - by distinguishing between "personal" and "subject matter" jurisdiction. Although the English Courts had "personal" jurisdiction over Ainsworth, they could not hear claims of a nature beyond their competency – and claims for infringement of non- EU copyright were, it said, "non-justiciable". 18. Ainsworth was no doubt delighted to have knocked out the final enemy TIE fighter, but the judgment came with Solo's warning: "Great, kid. Don't get cocky."


The Jedi Council

19. Lucasfilm appealed to the Supreme Court. No appeal was, however, heard on the unenforceability of the US judgment. Further, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower Courts on the issue of UK copyright. Thus, there was no UK infringement, and "rebel" Ainsworth celebrated victory – cue the medal ceremony and the wink aimed at Princess Leia...

20. But wait. What of the "justiciability" of English claims for US copyright infringement? Had Lucasfilm constructed a new, fully operational, Death Star with which the Empire could strike back?

21. On this issue, the Supreme Court viewed the Court of Appeal's judgment as just a clever Jedi mindtrick, and unanimously overturned it - ruling the English Court was right to hear the claim. Any "non-justiciable" claims did not include claims for infringement of foreign copyright (which did not require registration to subsist). Amongst others, it made the following points:

  1. It was only in claims concerning registered (EU) intellectual property rights (and their validity) that Article 22(4) of the Brussels I Regulation applied so as to allocate "exclusive jurisdiction" - to the EU country where application/ registration occurred. Thus that provision did not apply to EU copyright claims, and a similar approach should be adopted as regards non-EU copyrights too.
  2. The application of foreign laws in various other types of claim did not make them "non-justiciable", and there was no reason why copyright claims should be any different.
  3. The new Rome II Regulation3 (although not in force in time4 to play anything other than a cameo role) expressly envisaged that actions could be brought in EU Member States for the infringement of foreign IP rights - including copyright5.

22. One can see some force in the Supreme Court's reasoning.


"Impossible to see, the future is..."

23. The decision can be viewed in two ways:

(a) On the one hand, it paves the way for forum shoppers to bring a plethora of infringement claims, thereby utilising the English Courts to give effect to "alien" principles against UK-domiciled entities.

(b) At the same time, it gives A New Hope to those wishing to enforce non-EU copyrights in an on-line era - by providing them with an effective mechanism for bringing to account UK entities which infringe those rights overseas and might otherwise have escaped retribution.

24. What does it mean for Ainsworth? The Californian Court damages award for infringement of the US copyright had totalled US$20m. However, that was in respect of sales worth a mere US$8,000 - US$30,000. The English Court may award a much lower figure – if, under the pre-Rome II rules6, it applies English procedural law when quantifying the damages.

25. But a further Phantom Menace lurks in the shadows for other UK defendants. In future non-contractual claims which are instead subject to Rome II, it will be the governing law that will apply to the assessment of damage.7 That could be the law of a non-EU country, and the methodology it employs could be very different. Hopefully, public policy8 (and other similar mechanisms9) will prevent the application of penal approaches to quantification, or Rome II could turn to the dark side...


1 Owusu v Jackson (t/a Villa Holidays Bal Inn Villas) (Case C-281/02) [2005] E.C.R. I-1383

2 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

3 Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II).

4 Articles 31 and 32 of Rome II. As to when Rome II started to take effect, see also the pending ECJ reference (Case C-412/10) in Homawoo v GMF Assurance SA and others [2010] EWHC 1941 (QB), and the obiter view of the English High Court in Robert Bacon v Nacional Suiza Cia Seguros y

Reseguros SA [2010] EWHC 2017 (QB). 5 Article 8 of Rome II.

6 Section 14(3) of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, and Boys v Chaplin [1971] A.C. 356 and Harding v Wealands [2006] UKHL 32.

7 Article 15(c) of Rome II. That might be contrasted with the wording of Article 12(1)(c) of Rome I (i.e. Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations). This expressly states that, although the governing law will govern the assessment of damages, that is only the case "in so far as it is governed by rules of law" and only "within the limits of powers conferred on the court by its procedural law".

8 Article 26 of Rome II.

9 See Article 1(3): Rome II "shall not apply to evidence and procedure"; and Article 16: nothing in Rome II "shall restrict the application of the provisions of the law of the forum if they are mandatory irrespective of the law otherwise applicable to the non-contractual obligation". These, together with domestic statutes such as the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 (which outlaws the enforcement of multiple damages awards), may also assist in this respect.

Learn more about our Litigation & Dispute Resolution and Intellectual Property practices

Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the Mayer Brown Practices). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2011. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions