British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd v Armstrong Patents Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Scarman,Lord Edmund-Davies,Lord Bridge of Harwich,Lord Templeman,Lord Griffiths |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 1986 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1986] UKHL J0227-1 |
| Date | 27 February 1986 |
| Court | House of Lords |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
64 cases
-
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Green Cartridge Company (Hong Kong) Ltd
...The spare parts exception propounded by the House of Lords in British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co LtdELR ([1986] AC 577) should be treated with some caution. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council so stated when allowing an appeal by the plaintiff, Canon Kabush......
- Peko Wallsend Operations Ltd and Others v Linatex Process Rubber Bhd
-
Euro-Excellence Inc. v. Kraft Canada Inc., [2007] 3 SCR 20
...Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 560, 2006 SCC 49; British Leyland Motor Corp. v. Armstrong Patents Co., [1986] 1 All E.R. 850; Houle v. Canadian National Bank, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 122; Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. By Abella J. (dissenting) Th......
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Another v Silverstone Tire & Rubber Company Sdn Bhd
Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
-
A LOOK BACK AT PUBLIC POLICY, THE LEGISLATURE, THE COURTS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF COPYRIGHT LAW IN SINGAPORE
...affected the supply of spare parts for motor cars) in British Leyland Motor Corp Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd (“British Leyland”) [1986] AC 577: “It is of course a strong thing (not to say constitutionally questionable) for a judicially declared head of public policy to be treated as over......
-
Abandonment, copyright and orphaned works: what does it mean to take the proprietary nature of intellectual property rights seriously?
...their Lordships did not comment on this aspect of the appellant's case: British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd [1986] 1 AC 577. (73) Bundesgerichtshof [German Federal Court of Justice], I ZR 68/93, 23 February 1995 reported in (1995) 129 BGHZ 66. We have used the E......
-
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN SINGAPORE: A GENERAL OVERVIEW1
...the above where the storage of the work in the computer is essential to the use of the program in the computer. 108 [1986] R.P.C. 279; [1986] 2 W.L.R. 400. 109 See Mono Pumps (N.Z.) Ltd. v. Karinya Industrial Ltd. (1986) 7 I.P.R. 25 where the New Zealand court refused to follow the British ......
-
CHARACTER MERCHANDISING UNDER THE COPYRIGHT AND REGISTERED DESIGNS LAWS OF SINGAPORE
...designs can perhaps at least partially account for the House of Lords decision in British Leyland Motor Co v Armstrong Patents Ltd[1986] 2 WLR 400. 114 Defined in section 70(2). 115 See Wei, supra, note 25, at 179—180. 116 In section 1(4) of the RDA, newness can be determined by whether or ......
Request a trial to view additional results