Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Green Cartridge Company (Hong Kong) Ltd

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
CourtPrivy Council
Judgment Date30 Apr 1997

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Before Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hutton

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
Green Cartridge Co (Hong Kong) Ltd

Privy Council - Hong Kong - copyright - 'spare parts' exception

Exception must be treated with caution

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 Kabushiki Kaisha, from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong which by a majority on the copyright issue had allowed an appeal by the defendant, Green Cartridge Co (Hong Kong) Ltd from the judgment in the High Court of Hong Kong of Mr Justice Rogers, who had been granted the plaintiff an injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in certain drawings.

Mr David Kitchin, QC and Mr Paul Shieh, of the Hong Kong Bar, for the plaintiff; Mr Simon Thorley, QC and Mr Stewart Wong, of the Hong Kong Bar, for the defendant.

LORD HOFFMANN said that the question was whether the spare parts doctrine recognised in the British Leyland case entitled the defendant to infringe the plaintiff's copyright in drawings of parts of the cartridges used with its photocopiers and laser printers.

During the lifetime of the plaintiff's machines various of the components would need to be replaced and the supply of toner renewed. The plaintiff decided to include a supply of toner and those parts in a single disposable plastic cartridge to be inserted by the owner of the machine when the toner gave out.

The aftermarket, as it was called, in cartridges contributed significantly to the plaintiff's profits. In 1990 the initial cost of one of its typical laser printers was US$1,700, and during a projected life of five years or 200,000 copies the owner would need about 62 cartridges at $120 each, involving a further expenditure of $7,500.

Although the aftermarket was dominated by the plaintiff's sales of new cartridges, there was also in Hong Kong a cottage industry of refilling used cartridges comprising 40 per cent of the market there.

The defendant manufactured new cartridges and sold them in Hong Kong and for export in competition with those of the plaintiff. The plaintiff commenced proceedings, inter alia, for infringement of copyright in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Schutz (UK) Ltd and Others v Delta Containers Ltd (No 1)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 22 November 2011
    ...idea and the old idea. That depends on what the old idea was. Canon 125 77. Next there is the decision in Canon v Green Cartridge [1997] AC 728, only a few years before United Wire. Canon was complaining in Hong Kong about a defendant who made copies of Canon cartridges for Canon printers. ......
  • Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 8 March 2006
    ...grant. The decision is not without criticism � see particularly the analysis of Leyland by the Privy Council in Canon v Green Cartridge [1997] AC 728. The conclusion in that case was that the " Leyland" defence is limited to clear cases of anti-competitiveness, or those where the......
  • Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 12 November 2020
    ...Inc (2008) 522 F 3d 1348 at 1362. 422 Hewlett-Packard (1997) 123 F 3d 1445 at 1452. 423 Hewlett-Packard (1997) 123 F 3d 1445 at 1453. 424 [1997] AC 728 at 425 (2001) 264 F 3d 1094. 426 (2001) 264 F 3d 1094 at 1101, 1110–1111. 427 Jazz Photo (2001) 264 F 3d 1094 at 1106. 428 Jazz Photo (2001......
  • Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 6 December 2006 533–534 [22], 545–546 [81]. 10 [1964–5] NSWR 229 . 11 [1971] 2 QB 78 . 12 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Green Cartridge Co (Hong Kong) Ltd [1997] AC 728 at 13 [1977] RPC 537 . 14 [1986] AC 577 . 15Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd v Concrete Pty Ltd (2005) 144 FCR 264. 16Concrete......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT