Lord Templeman said: ‘The appellants’ submissions are, in essence, based on the proposition that if a product is worth copying, the law should protect the product against being copied. My Lords, that is not the law. In British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd. v Armstrong Patents Co. Ltd. (1986) AC 577, this House declined to allow the law of copyright to be exploited and rejected the argument that a motor car manufacturer was entitled to a perpetual monopoly in spare parts and could prevent the copying of spare parts which were no longer protected by a patent. In In re Coca-Cola Co. (1986) 1 WLR 695, this House declined to allow trade mark law to be exploited and rejected the argument that the manufacturer of a beverage sold under a trade name had established a perpetual monopoly in and could prevent the copying of the shape of a bottle which was no longer protected by the Registered Designs Act 1949. In Interlego A.G. v Tyco Industries Inc. [1988] UKPC 3; (1988) 3 WLR 678, the Privy Council declined to allow the law of copyright in Hong Kong to be exploited and rejected the argument that a manufacturer of a toy was entitled to a perpetual monopoly in the toy and could prevent the copying of the shape of the toy which was no longer protected by the Registered Designs Act 1949. In Reg. v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Ex parte Gist-Brocades N.V. (1986) 1 WLR 51 and in Allen and Hanburys Ltd. v Generics (U.K.) Ltd. (1988) 2 All ER 454, proprietors of patented drugs sought to obstruct and delay the settlement of terms of licences of right by the comptroller and met with some success until the European Court of Justice ruled that the comptroller had no power to prohibit imports from Community countries’
Lord Templeman
(1989) 2 WLR 378
Medicines Act 1968
England and Wales
Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.667565