This is an interesting case.
This case highlights a division between copyright law in UK and in other parts of Europe.
The UK has a ‘closed list’ system where to be eligible for copyright protection a ‘work’ must fall in to one of a defined series of classes – a literary work, a dramatic work, a musical work, an artistic work – if you can’t squeeze your creation into one of these then there is no copyright protection.
In some parts of Europe it is different and the list is ‘open’ – so it is about whether the work is an expression of the individuals intellectual creativity –without having to fit through one of the ‘cookie cutter’ classes of works first - this opens the potential of copyright protection to far more types of ‘works’.
We all know that copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself, but another cherished principle is that it doesn’t protect functional expressions – for instance copyright may protect a recipe published in a cookery book if it is original enough (though some experts dispute this) – meaning that it would be an infringement of copyright to publish the recipe in another book without permission but actually making the recipe from the instructions in the book has never been thought to be an infringement of copyright. However, it is difficult to see how you could control the taste of a cheese without controlling the recipe.
Readers with an interest for copyright in unusual or, rather, less conventional 'objects' [I will explain below why the word 'works' might not be appropriate] will know that for quite some time it has been disputed whether IP protection - particularly in the form of copyright - is available to, say, perfumes or culinary creations.