header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 May 2022 / Laura Trapnell
Issue: 7977 / Categories: Features , Profession , Intellectual property
printer mail-detail

Au contraire, Rodney!

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
80848
Are Del Boy & Rodders heading to court? Laura Trapnell looks into an unusual claim
  • Considers a copyright and passing off action being brought against a theatrical production based on the sitcom Only Fools and Horses.

Lovely Jubbly! The nation loves Only Fools and Horses and there is quite a lot of coverage at the moment concerning the Only Fools and Horses copyright infringement and passing off action. The action is being brought by Shazam—the television production company founded by the sitcom’s late writer, John Sullivan—that is suing an immersive theatre show (Only Fools: The (Cushty) Dining Experience) based on the BBC sitcom.

Who dares, wins!

The claim focuses on the use of the Only Fools and Horses characters, together with some of their well-known phrases by the Cushty Dining Experience and alleges copyright infringement and passing off. Apart from the obvious appeal because of the much-loved subject matter, the reason this case is interesting is because it goes against the well-established interpretation of copyright and passing

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll