A Fulton Co Ltd v Grant Barnett and Co Ltd: ChD 2001

The court considered an allegation that part of an unregistered design had been copied. The defendant said that the section required a claim in respect of the entire design.
Held: The part in respect of which a claim must be made must neither be insignificant, nor included in any part of the design which ‘must match’ ‘ . . . the core meaning of ‘design’ is the shape or configuration of an article. Prima facie that would mean the shape or configuration of the whole article. But it does not have to be the whole article: the design can be the shape or configuration of the article, and apparently any part may be sufficient. And the scope of what design right may subsist in is enlarged further by the reference to ‘any aspect’ of the shape or configuration concerned . . . Design right might be claimed to subsist in the whole aspect of the shape or configuration of the whole . . . or it might be claimed to subsist in one or more particular aspects of the shape or configuration of one or more particular parts . . .’


Park J


[2001] RPC 36


Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 213(6)


England and Wales


CitedOcular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care Ltd ChD 11-Nov-1996
The freedom for a claimant in registered design right to frame his claim, as to whether he asserts an infringement of the entire design, or limits it to the section infringed, is important.
Laddie J said: ‘This means that the proprietor can . .

Cited by:

CitedA Fulton Company Limited v Totes Isotoner (UK) Limited CA 4-Nov-2003
The defendants appealed a finding that they had infringed the claimant’s unregistered design rights in collapsible umbrellas. The defendants said the law protected only the design as a whole, and that only part had been copied.
Held: Authority . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188220