Francis, Day & Hunter Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Corporation Ltd et Al

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1939
Date1939
CourtPrivy Council
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
26 cases
  • Shazam Productions Ltd v Only Fools the Dining Experience Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Intellectual Property Enterprise Court
    • 8 Junio 2022
    ...Bible of Peckham – Volumes 1–3' by BBC books (1999). 3 The footnote cites Francis Day and Hunter Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Corp Ltd [1940] A.C. 112 at 123. The general rule “does not mean that in particular cases a title may not be on so extensive a scale, and so important in character, a......
  • The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater Holding BV
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 26 Noviembre 2010
    ...Mr Silverleaf relied on the detailed analysis of English and Australian authorities (including Lamb v. Evans, Francis Day & Hunter Limited v. Twentieth Century Fox Corp Limited [1940] AC 112, Ladbroke v. William Hill, Exxon Corporation v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International Limited ......
  • Griggs Group Ltd v Evans
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 12 Mayo 2004
    ...International Ltd [1982] Ch 119, C.A. (no copyright in the word "Exxon"). 6 Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v. Twentieth Century Fox Corpn [1940] AC 112 , PC (no copyright in the phrase "The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo"). 7 There may be circumstances in which registration of a trade ma......
  • Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 21 Enero 1964
    ...dealt with by Lord Wright in the judgment of the Privy Council in Francis Day & Hunter, Limited v. Twentieth Century Fox Corporation, [1940], A.C., 112, and I think that he rightly expressed the principle when he said (at p. 122)—"The copying which is complained of is the use of the title, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Is this headline protected by copyright? Federal Court says no as Fairfax loses copyright infringement case.
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 22 Noviembre 2010
    ...Limited publishes the LexisNexis Intellectual Property Bulletin Footnotes 1 Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Corp Ltd [1940] AC 112 (for song titles); Rose v Information Services Ltd [1987] FSR 254 and Dick v Yates (1881) 18 Ch D 76 (for book titles); Green v Broadcastin......
  • Notable Copyright Decisions In 2021
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 2 Febrero 2022
    ...connection." Copyright in Historical Facts In John Winkler v. Nate Hendley, 2021 FC 498, the Court followed the Francis, Day & Hunter [1939] 4 All E.R.192 (Eng. P.C.) decision when considering the definition of a "work" in section 2 of the Copyright Act. The section states that a "work incl......
5 books & journal articles
  • REFLECTIONS ON AUTHORSHIP AND THE MEANING OF A “WORK” IN AUSTRALIAN AND SINGAPORE COPYRIGHT LAW
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2012, December 2012
    • 1 Diciembre 2012
    ...[2004] FCA 505 38 (1928) 139 LT 365. 39 (1928–1935) MacG Cop Cas 44. 40 Kirk v Fleming (1928–1935) MacG Cop Cas 44 at 50 (Luxmoore J). 41[1940] AC 112. 42Francis, Day & Hunter Ltd v 20th Century Fox Corp Ltd[1940] AC 112 at 123. 43(1983) 2 IPR 191. 44(2003) 57 IPR 63. 45(2009) 81 IPR 525. 4......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Digital Copyright Law
    • 21 Junio 2016
    ...340 (1991) ...................................................................... 52 Francis, Day & Hunter Ltd v 20th Century Fox (1939), [1940] AC 112, [1939] UKPC 68 ................................................................................................ 45 FWS Joint Sports Claima......
  • RIGHTS AND DEFENCES AT THE INTERFACE OF COPYRIGHT AND TRADE MARK LAW: A CLOSER LOOK AT THE “ARTISTICALLY ENDOWED TRADE MARK” PHENOMENON
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 Diciembre 2003
    ...held that the corporate name “Exxon” did not qualify for copyright protection as a literary work) and Francis Day v Twentieth Century Fox[1940] AC 112 (where it was held that most titles are insufficiently substantial to attract copyright protection as literary works). These cases suggest t......
  • Authored Works
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Digital Copyright Law
    • 21 Junio 2016
    ...s 2 of the Act. The threshold of originality and distinctiveness is not insigniicant: see Francis, Day & Hunter Ltd v 20th Century Fox , [1940] AC 112, where the title The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo failed to garner copyright protection. 6 See Robertson v Thomson Corp , 2006 SCC ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT