https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:c32e6558-7d35-4b7d-97bd-268b4e13f60f/as/ART-US00084.avif?assetname=ART-US00084.jpg
Brand interchange | 4 min read
Peppa Pig is granted an international injunction
false
aiSummary
Summarise with AI
AI summary
/content/shoosmiths/index
Summarise with AI
title
true
Modal title
medium
17B078

Decision: Hasbro Consumer Products v Công ty TNHH & Ors
Court: High Court (Intellectual Property List)
Judge: Mr Justice Richard Smith
Citation: [2026] EWHC 1957 (Ch)
Decision: Here
Key issues: Injunctions

Published: 11 August 2026
Authors: Eloise Ryan

Introduction

In Hasbro Consumer Products v Công ty TNHH & Ors, the English High Court has granted an (unusual) worldwide injunction in relation to aspects of Wolfoo, a popular preschool YouTube series.

Wolfoo was launched in 2018 and now has over 20 million subscriptions across its three major channels. It follows a young wolf, who lives with his family and friends, with episodes exploring everyday situations, adventures and games with Wolfoo.

In 2022 the makers of Peppa Pig brought infringement proceedings in the English courts, alleging, among other things:

In June this year, the court granted summary judgment on a discrete aspect of the wider proceedings.

Here, the Claimants alleged that audio clips from Peppa Pig had been copied in Wolfoo, resulting in infringement of copyright in the sound recordings. To support their case, the Claimants relied on detailed technical evidence, using spectrogram analysis in respect of Peppa Pig videos and a representative sample of Wolfoo videos, showing identity.

In turn, the Defendants sought to raise doubts such as the identity, authorship and ownership of the copyright works, but failed to substantively challenge the evidence advanced by the Claimants.

The issue fell before Mr Justice Richard Smith, who concluded that the Defendants had no realistic prospect of successfully defending this aspect of the claim, giving summary judgment.

The question arose as to whether the finding of copyright infringement under English law may apply to other jurisdictions and, if so, whether an injunction should be granted.

The Defendants argued that copyright is territorial in nature and that the Claimants could not simply rely upon English copyright law when alleging infringement across numerous jurisdictions.

Having examined the "default rule" and the "presumption of similarity" in private international law, the Court explained that, where foreign law is pleaded and properly engaged, English law may nevertheless play a role if it is reasonable to assume that the foreign law is materially similar to English law such that it is unlikely to lead to a different substantive outcome.

The Claimants argued that this test was satisfied in relation to EU jurisdictions because UK copyright law historically developed in line with the Information Society Directive. In relation to other countries, they relied on the harmonising effect of international copyright instruments including the Rome Convention, TRIPS and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).

The Court accepted those arguments and found that the Defendants had failed to identify any material differences between English law and the laws of the relevant foreign jurisdictions. In particularly forceful terms, the judge stated that it was not enough for the Defendants merely to assert a "bald belief" that material differences might exist and that further investigation would reveal them.

Representative sampling and large-scale online infringement

Another question arose as to whether the Defendants should obtain relief only in relation to the representative sample of Wolfoo video on which it relied, or all of them (which exceed some 30,000 videos).

The Court accepted evidence that the sampled videos were genuinely representative of the wider corpus, and that analysing every Wolfoo video would have been wholly disproportionate.  As a result, the Court was prepared to infer that further infringements would likely be identified if wider analysis were undertaken.

Injunction

The practical consequence of this was a remarkably broad injunction. The Court ordered the removal of all Wolfoo videos falling within the scope of the findings in all jurisdictions that are parties to the relevant international copyright conventions and treaties (rather than limiting relief to specific videos or specific jurisdictions).

Key takeaways

The key takeaways from the decision are that:

Caveat

While the judgment is a buoy to copyright holders looking to enforce their rights globally and cost effectively, a note of caution:

Introducing Brand Interchange

In-house brand advisers can often feel like they are working behind closed doors. You may be working as the only trade mark lawyer in your organisation, or in a newly formed team, with new ideas, trying to understand new practices. Brand Interchange is designed to support and help you. It’s the first dedicated group of its kind aimed at promoting and celebrating UK brand professionals. To join Brand Interchange, please register with Shoosmiths by completing and submitting the membership form. Registering as a member of Brand Interchange is completely free, and so are all the benefits you receive as a member.