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 Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.