L. Woolley Jewellers Ltd v A & A Jewellery Ltd and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2002 |
| Date | 31 July 2002 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lady Justice Arden
Copyright - difference between enquiry whether item copied forms substantial part of copyright work and whether whole design containing copied element was substantially same design - design right infringements - regard to be had to whole design
There was a difference between an inquiry into whether the item copied formed a substantial part of a copyright work and an inquiry into whether the whole design containing the element which had been copied was substantially the same design as that which enjoyed design right protection.
On the test applicable to design right infringement, it might not be enough to copy a part, even a substantial part. Regard had to be had to the overall design which enjoyed design right.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lady Justice Arden) so held on July 31, 2002, allowing an appeal by the defendants, A & A Jewellery Ltd and A & A Jewellery (London) Ltd, from a decision of Judge Fysh, QC, in the Patents County Court on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd
...part of the originality of the work.” 171 The penultimate sentence of this passage was explained by Arden LJ in L. Woolley Jewellers Ltd v A & A Jewellery Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1119, [2003] FSR 15: “[9] The judge did not explain the last sentence of his citation from Lord Hoffmann's speech ......
-
Utopia Tableware Ltd v BBP Marketing Ltd and Another
...from copyright infringement and regard has to be had to the overall design which enjoys design right: see Arden LJ in L Woolley Jewellers v A&A Jewellery [2003] FSR 15 at [19]. Analysis 102 The only feature which I have not already discounted is feature 1(a), so that it is the only one whi......
-
University of Western Australia v Gray (No 20)
...v White (2000) 10 BLR (3d) 173 CJ Burland Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Meat Industry Board (1968) 120 CLR 400 Collag Corp v Merck and Co Inc [2003] FSR 15 Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Ltd (1959) 102 CLR 232 Comstock Canada v Electec Ltd (1991) FTR 241 Dalzell v Duaber Manufacturing Co 149 ......
-
Original Beauty Technology Company Ltd v G4K Fashion Ltd
...right with infringement of copyright was specifically rejected by the Court of Appeal in Wooley v A Jewellers [2002] EWCA Civ 1119; [2003] FSR 15, where it was held at [19] that: “19 … As Aldous J observed in the passage I have set out in the Klucznik case, there is a difference between an......
-
Are Fashion Designers Better Protected in Continental Europe than in the United Kingdom? A Comparative Analysis of the Recent Case Law in France, Italy and the United Kingdom
...and Hawa International v Azure Designs [2006] ECDR 31 (CA).165 [1999] RPC 461 (CA).166 [2009] ECDR 11.167 [1999] RPC 461, at 482.168 [2003] FSR 15 (CA), at paragraph 19.169 For a description, see Derclaye (2008a, chapter 3). In the field of fashion, see also Kahn(2006, 2007).170 Cass., 14 No......