![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
major_clangerIn the course of researching a legal point I came across the 2003 case of Griggs Group v Evans, alias the Case of the Doc Martens Logo.
The judge hearing the case, Peter Prescott QC, opened by explaining the central issue:
A client goes to an advertising agency and pays them to design a new logo. The agency employs a free-lance designer to produce the design. Nothing is said about copyright. Who gets the copyright in the logo? That is what this case is about.
He went on to introduce the parties - fairly normal, albeit with a touch of Michael Caine.
Everybody has heard of Dr Martens, also known as "Doc Martens", "Docs", or "DMs". As the Oxford English Dictionary explains, it is "A proprietary name for a type of heavy laced walking boot or shoe with a cushioned sole". The sole is, in fact, air-cushioned. The sole was originally developed by two German doctors, Dr Maertens and Dr Funck. They made "Dr Maertens" shoes for sale to elderly German women with foot trouble. (Not many people know that.)
After explaining how Northamptonshire firm Griggs bought rights to make them, he further described their popularity.
At first they were worn by postmen, builders, factory workers and so forth. They became standard issue police boots. Police officers are called out to deal with accidents and it is an advantage of a Dr Martens boot that the sole is resistant to petrol and other chemicals. Further, and according to the 2001 edition of Superbrands (a publication about 100 of Britain's strongest brands), policemen reckoned that the soft sole proved invaluable for sneaking up on criminals. The boots were also standard uniform for skinheads and football hooligans, and were taken up by the Rt Hon Tony Benn, PC, MP
I am not quite sure if the judge was seeking to imply ejusdem generis to create some line of association in that last sentence - perhaps he was thinking of Dennis Skinner. Anyway, he goes on to give a very clear and readable explanation of what happens to copyright when A commissions B to create artwork for A's use.
I also found several legal articles on this case. Almost without exception they relied on a punning title along the lines of 'Judge Puts the Boot In'. I recently went to a seminar on writing about IP cases and one of the bits of sage advice was not to rely on forced humour in titles. Because the chances are your wit will be exactly as limited as everyone else writing on the same case...
The judge hearing the case, Peter Prescott QC, opened by explaining the central issue:
A client goes to an advertising agency and pays them to design a new logo. The agency employs a free-lance designer to produce the design. Nothing is said about copyright. Who gets the copyright in the logo? That is what this case is about.
He went on to introduce the parties - fairly normal, albeit with a touch of Michael Caine.
Everybody has heard of Dr Martens, also known as "Doc Martens", "Docs", or "DMs". As the Oxford English Dictionary explains, it is "A proprietary name for a type of heavy laced walking boot or shoe with a cushioned sole". The sole is, in fact, air-cushioned. The sole was originally developed by two German doctors, Dr Maertens and Dr Funck. They made "Dr Maertens" shoes for sale to elderly German women with foot trouble. (Not many people know that.)
After explaining how Northamptonshire firm Griggs bought rights to make them, he further described their popularity.
At first they were worn by postmen, builders, factory workers and so forth. They became standard issue police boots. Police officers are called out to deal with accidents and it is an advantage of a Dr Martens boot that the sole is resistant to petrol and other chemicals. Further, and according to the 2001 edition of Superbrands (a publication about 100 of Britain's strongest brands), policemen reckoned that the soft sole proved invaluable for sneaking up on criminals. The boots were also standard uniform for skinheads and football hooligans, and were taken up by the Rt Hon Tony Benn, PC, MP
I am not quite sure if the judge was seeking to imply ejusdem generis to create some line of association in that last sentence - perhaps he was thinking of Dennis Skinner. Anyway, he goes on to give a very clear and readable explanation of what happens to copyright when A commissions B to create artwork for A's use.
I also found several legal articles on this case. Almost without exception they relied on a punning title along the lines of 'Judge Puts the Boot In'. I recently went to a seminar on writing about IP cases and one of the bits of sage advice was not to rely on forced humour in titles. Because the chances are your wit will be exactly as limited as everyone else writing on the same case...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-19 07:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-19 08:32 am (UTC)Is this normal, or have I just been very lucky? What audience are judges writing for - the plaintiffs themselves? other judges? future law students?
no subject
Date: 2009-01-19 12:06 pm (UTC)1) Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. An obscure or unintelligble decision, particularly one so to the lay litigant, does not make anyone think that the matter has been settled properly.
2) A clear and well-reasoned decision is less amenable to being appealed, both because it is more likely to convince the losing party that they are wrong and because it leaves less ground for technical arguments against it. In fact this particular case was appealed, but the Court of Appeal only accepted it because it dealt an important legal principle, and even then pretty much just said 'the reasoning of the judge at first instance was impeccable, and we agree'.
3) Judges like their cases to be cited in other cases. This is more likely to happen if their words are clear, convincing and embody a nice turn of phrase. (For the last, see just about anything said by Lord Denning.)
4) Very often, a judge will write a judgment based on the arguments presented by counsel. Indeed, in our advocacy course, we're taught to start with the judgment we'd like to get and then recast it as a submission to the court! In part, a good judgment may reflect persuasive and logical advocacy.
BAILLI is an excellent resource of court decisions, including many High Court judgments and all Court of Appeal judgments and House of Lords opinions. Not all are so clear; some inevitably get very technical, if dealing with complex but oft-argued areas of law, and some Criminal Appeal judgments can make for unpleasant and depressing reading. But many are very good, and in particular the judgments of the late Mr Justice Pumfrey in the Patents Court are masterpieces of explaining often complex areas of science and technology.