For The Plaintiff:
There is a substantial recognizable “striking” similarity.
There was copying and improper appropriation.
Non-commercial use is not “fair use” when it has a substantial market effect. In cases with a small-scale impact, courts are more receptive to arguments regarding the effect on the copyright owner's market or potential market.

For the Defendant:
Abstraction/subtraction: Item elements that are found to be generic to "a sporran” are not protected.
De minimis non curat lex, "the law does not care about trivial things”. When the plaintiff establishes only a trivial use of the copyrighted work by the defendant, there is no infringement.

Thanks Wikipedia.
“All of the text in Wikipedia, and most of the images and other content, is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Contributions remain the property of their creators, while the GFDL license ensures the content is freely distributable and reproducible.”