Pepper Pig Scores a Big Win Against the Big Bad Wolfoo

What happens when copyright infringement spreads across thousands of online videos? The Peppa Pig v Wolfoo case offers an important insight into representative evidence, blanket injunctions and the practical enforcement of copyright in the digital age.

Hasbro Consumer Products Licensing Ltd & Anor v Cong Ty Tnhh Dau Tu Cong Nghe Va Dich Vu Sconnect Viet Nam EWHC 1957 (Ch)

An application for summary judgment was filed on 1 August 2025 concerning the copying of sound recordings by the defendants, SConnect, in their Wolfoo videos, which had been communicated to the public since 2018.

The Background

An application for summary judgment was filed on 1 August 2025 concerning the copying of sound recordings by the defendants SConnect in their Wolfoo videos which had been communicated to the public since 2018. The infringements were established by reference to what is described as a representative sample of a much larger corpus of Wolfoo videos, exceeding 30,000.

The evidence relating to the representative sample was particularly compelling. Spectrogram analysis was used to match sounds from Peppa Pig videos with corresponding sounds in a randomly selected sample of Wolfoo videos.

The defendants unsuccessfully argued that any injunction should be confined to the representative sample, rather than extending to all Wolfoo videos available online. The Claimants had argued that it would not be proportionate to examine all Wolfoo videos.

Given the defendants’ lack of engagement in challenging the representativeness of the sample, the court concluded that, under CPR 16.5(5), the allegations were deemed admitted.

The judge also noted that, even if this had not been the case, he was satisfied that the samples selected for each category were representative of the Wolfoo corpus as a whole.

In particular, the judge noted that it would have been disproportionate to analyse all 30,000 videos. He considered that inferences could safely be drawn from the evidence, particularly given the high match rates: 100% for the English-language videos and 75% for the foreign-language videos.

Relief Granted

The judge granted declaratory relief, considering it necessary to facilitate the removal of infringing videos. He also considered it appropriate to record the defendants’ infringements in a declaration.

The judge described the defendants’ copyright infringement as ‘prolific’ and ‘long standing’. The defendants had initially been contacted in 2020 but had continued to communicate Wolfoo videos that infringed the Claimants’ copyright. The judge therefore granted a range of injunctive relief, including:

• The take down/removal order extending to all videos featuring Wolfoo online;
• An order prohibiting the creation, uploading or communication of infringing material namely those containing Peppa Pig sounds or other elements of Peppa Pig soundtracks in any country included in Schedule 2 which covered the EU and countries which are parties to treaties and conventions including: Rome Convention, TRIPS and WPPT;
• An order prohibiting any procuring or authorising any infringing acts;
• An order requiring disclosure of online channels controlled by the defendants;
• An order requiring the delivery up of infringing materials and a witness statement confirming compliance;
• An inquiry into loss or damage or an account of profits; and
• A publicity notice requiring the defendant to publish the outcome of the decision.

The Costs

The judge awarded costs for the successful summary judgment application and for the copyright infringement claim, but ordered that this would be subject to a detailed assessment if not agreed on between the parties.

The Claimants had originally sought summary assessment of costs. However, the judge considered this inappropriate given that the claim exceeded £500,000 and the hearing had occupied only half a day.

No Permission to Appeal

The defendants sought permission to appeal on five different grounds, including challenges to the extension of relief to the entire corpus, the post-issue findings of infringement, the expert evidence, the chain of title and the court’s application of the presumption of similarity. In refusing permission to appeal on all the grounds put forward, it was concluded that none of the points raised by the defendant had any real prospect of success and as a result there was no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The defendants were, however, given 21 days to renew their application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Trade Mark Searches Require a Little Imagination

This is perhaps the wider lesson. When conducting a trade mark search, the question should not always be limited to:

“What are we selling today?”

It can be equally important to ask:

“What might we realistically want to sell tomorrow?”

An emerging musician may initially care only about music and entertainment services. Five or ten years later, they may have a record label, events business, clothing range and international licensing programme.

A name that presented an acceptable level of risk for the original business may look very different once those plans expand.

The same applies from the perspective of established trade mark owners. A third-party use in what initially looks like a remote commercial field can become much more relevant if that business starts moving towards your own.

It is also why clearance is about more than simply finding an earlier registration. Older marks may be subject to proof-of-use requirements, while the commercial relationship between the parties may be much more important than the class numbers sitting on the register.

Enforcement Stay Refused

Finally, a request was made for a stay on the enforcement of any take down order pending any application for permission to appeal. On this issue, it was considered that the ongoing infringement of the claimants’ copyright in the sound recordings would continue to cause significant harm and as a result the request was denied.

Why Does This Matter?

The injunction was not confined to the representative sample in which infringement had been established. Instead, it applied to the entire catalogue, on the basis that the sample was found to be representative and that it would not be proportionate to analyse all 30,000 videos. The decision is particularly important where there is widespread online infringement and it is not practical or proportionate to file evidence of every instance.

The geographical scope of the decision, which extended beyond the UK to the EU and member countries of the Rome Convention, TRIPS and WPPT, demonstrates an effective approach for right holders seeking to enforce their rights across borders. This is particularly important in a digital landscape where a broader approach may be necessary to address prolonged and widespread infringement.

Photo credits

Peppa Fanon

Wikimedia Commons