Historians lose "Da Vinci Code" plagiarism appeal

LONDON (Reuters) - Two historians have lost another legal battle in British courts over claims that U.S. author Dan Brown plagiarized their ideas for his blockbuster novel "The Da Vinci Code."

Three of Britain's senior judges dismissed the appeal by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh against an earlier High Court ruling which had also rejected their claims.

The decision leaves the historians facing estimated legal costs of three million pounds ($6 million).

It seems unlikely that the case will go any further as no application has been made for permission to appeal to Britain's highest court, the House of Lords.

In their action against the novel's British publishers Random House, Baigent and Leigh claimed that Brown copied significant parts of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" which they wrote in 1982.

Both books raise the possibility that Mary Magdalene had a child by Jesus, that she fled to France after the Crucifixion and that Christ's bloodline survives to this day.

In the appeal, the historians' lawyers argued that the High Court judge, Mr Justice Smith, who controversially wrote a secret code of his own into his 71-page judgment, had misunderstood the law and the basis of their claims.

They said it was wrong to dismiss the idea of a "central theme" in the historians' research which he said was used extensively in six chapters of "The Da Vinci Code".

Brown's wife Blythe, who emerged during the original case last year as a key researcher and inspiration for the author, knew she was relying exclusively on the historians' book for the chapters, the lawyers said.