Design in UK Law
Matsushita Electric Industrial Company v Comptroller-General of Patents
...... . . 28 At para. 44 and following he dealt with certain parallel provisions under the Registered Designs Act which, in my view, do not assist the debate, and certainly do not seem, in that case at any rate, to assist Mr. Ryan's argument. . . ......
British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd v Armstrong Patents Company Ltd
......These objects in themselves do not attract copyright protection; nor are they patentable, since they embody no new invention, and their design is not registrable under the registered designs legislation since they have no "eye appeal." Thus there has arisen the anomaly that in effect (though ......
Amp Inc. v Utilux Pty. Ltd
...... found that none of their existing range was exactly suitable and as Hoovers would need many millions of these small articles they designed a new terminal to meet Hoover's requirements. Then it occurred to them that the design of this new terminal could be registered under the Registered ......
Oakley Inc. v Animal Ltd
......EC Directive 98/71/EC required Member States including the United Kingdom to 'approximate' their legislation in relation to Registered Designs. But it provided by Article 11.8 an option allowing Member States to derogate and retain in force existing legislation for designs registered under ......
Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth
......It was an enormous commercial success. It won an Oscar for best costume design. This appeal is concerned with intellectual property rights in various artefacts made for use in the film. The most important of these was the ......
King Features Syndicate Inc. v Kleeman (O. & M.) Ltd
......None of the designs therefor was registered under the Patents and Designs Acts 1907 and 1919. The infringements complained of are of the drawings and the Act relied on ......
Re Halliburton Energy Services Inc.'s Patent Applications
......The invention is concerned with improving the design of roller cone drill bits for drilling oil wells (and the like). The point is to increase their drilling efficiency and their operational life. The ......
Procter & Gamble Company v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd
...... . 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Lewison J,  EWHC 3154 (Ch) . He held P&G's registered community design (“RCD”) No, 000097969–0001 valid and infringed. The indication of the products to which the design is intended to be applied is “sprayers”. ......
- Designer Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (trading as Washington DC)
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc. (No 2)
......) , Judge Birss held that three Samsung Galaxy tablet computers, the 10.1, the 8.9 and the 7.7 did not infringe Apple's registered Community Design No. 000181607–0001. By the second, of 18 th July 2012,  EWHC 2049 (Pat) , he held that Apple should be compelled to publicise the fact ......
See all results