Golden Homes (1998) Ltd & Anor v Blue Chip Construction Ltd & Ors

High Court, Auckland, CIV 2003-404-7090, Allan J, 21 June 2005

In 2003 the plaintiffs had commenced ex-parte injunction proceedings against the first and second defendants alleging infringement of copyright in plans of certain residential homes. An order was made against the first defendant and undertakings given by the second defendant. In December 2004, the plaintiff sought to extend the injunction to a third and fourth defendant. The issue of continuation of the interim injunction against the first and second defendants arose.

The case is noted for the remarks by Allan J concerning copyright in architectural plans relating to small to medium sized houses:

The plans in issue are architectural plans, relating to small or medium sized homes on small sections. There will inevitably be a similarity between certain of such plans, arising simply from considerations such as financial constraints, section sizes, health and safety requirements of territorial authorities, and the ordinary requirements of homeowners such as the general desirability of separating living accommodation and service facilities for example. Another important feature is the relative commonality of joinery and material and a consequent degree of commonality of dimension in homes of similar overall design. It is important also to remember there is no copyright in ideas. It is the expression of an idea which is entitled to protection. So evidence of a credible claim to the independent creation of a plan by the defendants must be carefully assessed in determining a claim of copyright infringement.

One of the arguments advanced by the plaintiffs in support of their interim injunction application was the “bridgehead” argument. Allan J noted that this argument might carry weight when based on a patent or registered design so that there was a solid platform from which to claim rights to a monopoly. But in this case the platform was by no means as strong. The plaintiffs’ claim to ownership of the copyright was strongly challenged and there was a paucity of evidence as to initial authorship. Additionally there was countervailing evidence of independent creation together with assertions that a number of commonly-encountered house plans were effectively in the public domain. Accordingly the “bridgehead” argument was held to have lost considerable force in this case.

On the facts, the Court refused to continue the interim injunction against the first defendant or extend it to the third and fourth defendants. The undertaking given by the second defendant was discharged.