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 trim his design right claim to most closely match what he believes the defendant to have taken. The defendant will not know in what the alleged monopoly resides until the letter before action, or, more usually, the service of the statement of claim. This means that a plaintiff’s pleading has particular importance. It not only puts forward the claim but is likely to be the only statement of what is asserted to be the design right.’
and: ‘unless the confidential information is properly identified, an injunction in such terms is of uncertain scope and may be difficult to enforce . . Secondly, the defendant must know what he has to meet. He may wish to show that the items of information relied on by the plaintiff are matters of public knowledge. His ability to defend himself will be compromised if the plaintiff can rely on matters of which no proper warning was given. It is for all these reasons that failure to give proper particulars may be a particularly damaging abuse of process’.
Judges:
Laddie J
Citations:
[1997] RPC 289, (1997) 20(3) IPD 20022, [1996] EWHC Patents 1
Links:
Statutes:
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 213(6)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – A 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – British Airways Plc v Ryanair Limited ChD 25-Oct-2000
The claimant alleged that disparaging adverts by the defendant infringed its trade marks and amounted to the tort of malicious falsehood.
Held: There was no dispute that the mark had been used. The Act could not be used to prevent any use of . .
Cited – United Pan-Europe Communications N V v Deutsche Bank Ag CA 19-May-2000
The claimant sought to prevent the misuse of what it said was its confidential information, identifying it by reference to specific documents in which it was said to be recorded.
Held: That was a sufficient description because the defendant . .
Cited – Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Huesca De Crean QBD 2-Dec-2011
The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant, a former employee, from misusing its confidential information said to be held by her. Her contract contained no post employment restrictions but did seek to control confidential and other . .
Cited – Bains and Others v Moore and Others QBD 15-Feb-2017
The claimant anti-asbestos campaigners complained that the defendant investigators had infringed their various rights of privacy. They now sought discovery to support the claim.
Held: the contents of the witness statements do show that it is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188219
