Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

IP > 7. Designs > Flashcards

7. Designs Flashcards

1
Q

REGIMES that could offer protection for industrial designs

A
  1. Community registered designs (EU wide)
  2. Community unregistered designs (EU wide)
  3. UK UDR
  4. UK registered design right

(5. Residual C protection)
(6. Passing off and TM)
(7. BOC)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Wham-O (NZ CA)

A

Frisbee + mould = engraving

prototype frisbee = sculpture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Greenfield v Rover Scott

A

driver mechanism of lawn mower NOT engraving

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Breville v Thorn

A

mould for toast maker = sculpture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Lucas Film (sculpture)

A

if main purpose = functional then it is not a sculpture (see notes from copyright)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

George Hensher v Restawhile

A

upholstered chair is NOT AC
- but AC can be functional

Lord Simon: AC can exist even if intention is for mass production

Lord Reid, Dilhorne: AC cannot be mass produced (must be handmade)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Lucas Film (AC)

A

Mann J referred to Hensher to find general principles

  1. intention = real significance
  2. AC = composite phrase (but need not be same person)
  3. Expert evidence not required
  4. need not be a work of art

in this case:
C = YES justifiable pride
A = NO primary purpose was not aesthetic but functionality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Bonz v Cooke

A

Mann J referred to this NZ CA case

artist: creative ability producing something with aesthetic appeal
craftsman: makes something in a skilful way with justifiable pride in workmanship

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

British Northop v Texteam blackburn

A

2 concentric circles protected

by artistic work (c)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

British Leyland v Armstrong

A

YES INDIRECT C INFRINGEMENT

BUT SPECIFIC DEFENCE

  • if C enforced then no free market!
  • purchaser has inherent right to repair car in most economic way possible
  • must have access to free market for spare parts
  • this defence only works for complex products with rare replacements (not ink cartridges)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

BBC Worldwide v Pally Screen Printing

A

D sold t-shirts with C’s TV Characters

Argued s.51 (derived characters from TV show and this indirectly copied drawings BUT 2D copies on t-shirt were articles made to design drawing)

summary judgement refused

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Lucas Film v Ainsworth

A

Mann J = rationale of s.51 is spare parts but wording of s.51 is not limited to that

  • s51 applies here (no C protection)
    2 questions to ask:
    1. was there a design doc (here yes)
  1. design doc not for artistic work (here yes)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Flashing Badge v Grooves

A

novelty badges

  • s.51 applies for the badge (not A work)
  • s.51 does not apply for surface decoration (A work)

so only (c) protection for surface protection

(design right in the badge, i.e. the placement of LED lights and shape)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Farmers Build v Carrier Bulk

A

Mummery J: UDR is “limited protection against unfair misappropriation”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Ocular Sciences v Aspect Vision (design)

A

design = broad

need not be visible to human eye

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Mackie v Behringer

A

shape = outward appearance

configuration = relative arrangements of parts/elements of article

(circuit diagram showing relevant arrangements of parts = configuration)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Magmatic v PMS

A

Layering components of medical kid = configuration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Dyson v Qualtex (shape)

A

shapes are not just 3D things

  • designs can subsist in 2D things
  • BUT patterns (e.g. patchwork) is not shape or configuration so not protected
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Clinisupplies v Park

A

various pieces of medical kit

selection of items = configuration if items layered (selection not enough)

20
Q

Lambretta v Teddy Smith

A

tracksuit, arrangement of colours

  • surface decoration
  • not shape/configuration
  • no configuration, just one part of diff. colours
21
Q

Electronic Techniques v Critchley

A

design = independent to the article

  • protection of design NOT limited to its embodiment in article Laddie J)
  • handle of fork e.g. (design) infringed if put on a knife

DESIGN RIGHT NOT CONFINED TO ITS FIRST USE IN ARTICLE

22
Q

Dyson v Qualtex (surface decoration)

A

Jacobs LJ: this exclusion is related to its inclusion within ordinary (c) law
- so exclusion confined to that which can be described as “decorated surface”

23
Q

Lambretta v Teddy (what is a surface decoration)

A

thin layer that runs through the article is a surface decoration

24
Q

Mark Wilkinson v Woodcraft

A

Parker J = Q of fact and degree

  • does not have to be strictly 2D to be a surface decoration
  • need not be essentially flat (incl. beading and engravings)

SD: paint, V-grooves, beading
NOT SD: handles, quadrants, cornices

25
Q

Dyson v Qualtex (surface decoration - facts)

A

CA: ribbing on handle = grip

functional so NOT SD

26
Q

Bailey v Haynes

A

design law not meant to protect idea underlying the shape, that is for patents (s.213(3)a)

27
Q

Fulton v Grant (method of construction)

A

stitching for umbrella case = technique

NOT within exception though
- s.213(a) only bites when it would prevent others using the method (e.g. method only results in 1 shape/configuration)

28
Q

Bailey v Haynes (case)

A

knitted mesh bag
- excluded
- it was a principle of construction
- no dimensional limitations on patterns claimed
0design right would be monopoly on construction

29
Q

Landor v Azure

A

expandable suitcase

  • NOT exlcuded
  • design not only way to create expandable suitcase (can be designed differently)

ONLY FALLS IN S.213(3)a if ONLY way of interpreting article

30
Q

Fulton v Grant (must fit)

A

interpret exclusions “purposively”

- do not give it breadth far beyond what it was intended to achieve

31
Q

Dyson v Qualtex (must fit)

A

bleed holes

  • chosen for fit (functional)
  • stops overheading
  • doesn’t matter that its also aesthetic
  • MUST FIT
  • HUMAN hand can be article
32
Q

Ocular Sciences (must fit)

A

human body can be article

bit that touches the eyeball = must fit exception
only UDR available on outer surface

33
Q

UWG v Ball

A

sex swing

  • straps NOT must fit excluded
  • touching human does not enable a connection for function
  • just a generic interface human happens to be placed on
34
Q

Dyson v Qualtex (must match)

A

relevant degree of dependency

WOULD OVERAL ARTICLE LOOK RADICALLY DIFFERENT IF ARTICLE NOT THE SHAPE IT WAS?

  • all about relevant dependency
  • strictly interpreted
  • not enough that public prefer exact copy
  • wand handle: not must match (public prefer but appearance of handle does not depend on rest of vacuum)
  • must fit: no monopoly on aspects of product
  • must match: no monopoly on aesthetic design
35
Q

Farmers Build v Carier Bulk

A

commonplace interpreted broadly (doesn’t have to be new)

2 stage test

  1. compare design to designs of other articles in the same field at time of creation
  2. commonplace?
36
Q

originality in UDR

A
  1. original in C sense

2. not commonplace (s.214(4))

37
Q

Lambretta v Teddy smith (design field)

A

all sportswear

38
Q

Scholes Window v Magnet

A

DF: ordinary and natural meaning

  • all windows generally
39
Q

Ultraframe v Eurocell

A

to be considered to be in design field, it must be “ready to hand” not something “hunted for and found at last minute”

40
Q

Farmers Build

A

components of machine and combination = original

  • NOT MANY COMPARATORS BECAUSE NEW
  • not commonplace
41
Q

Rolawn v Turnfmech

A

individual elements may be commonplace but whole may not be

  1. identify design field in Q
  2. compare C’s design to ones in the field
  3. make objective comparison of similarities

INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS = SIMILAR
OVERALL DESIGN = DIFFERENT

NOT COMMONPLACE

42
Q

Amoena v Truffle

A

breast prosthesis

  • functional constraints for design
  • no derivation
43
Q

Virgin Atlantic v Premieum

A

if design used for parts, comparison is between parts

if design right on spout, right infringed by putting it on another tea pot

44
Q

C&H Engineering v Klucnik

A

pig vendor

  • copying?
  • article made exactly/substantially to the copied design?

OBJECTIVE TEST –> decided through eyes of the person to whom the design is directed (pig farmers)

there is overall similarity

45
Q

Fulton v Grant Barnett (infringement of UDR)

A

side by side comparison by consumer

46
Q

Albert Packaging v Nampak

A

tortilla wrap packaging

  • NO DERIVATION
  • functional constraints
  • similarity explained by something other than copying

IP (18 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions