The claimant sought damages for infringement in their unregistered design right in a part of a window. Copyright was accepted, but in the claim for unregistered design right, the respondent said the design was commonplace.
Held: The judge was correct to use his own experience to find that it was so. The extent of the field within which comparisons were to be made was a matter of fact and degree for the judge. He was not restricted in allowing comparison with older but extant examples of similar designs. The term ‘design field in question’ was not defined in the Act and fell to be construed according to its ordinary meaning. In looking at the design, the judge was entitled to examine it from the point of view of the ordinary person it was designed to appeal to rather than from the point of view of the expert. The fact that the definition of design did not incorporate any reference to the nature of purpose of the article or the material structure of it meant that these were not relevant to the identifying of the design field.
Times 05-Jun-2001,  EWCA Civ 532,  FSR 10
England and Wales
See Also – Scholes Windows Limited v Magnet Limited CA 5-Nov-1999
Unregistered design right infringement. . .
Cited – Sales v Stromberg and others ChD 26-Jul-2005
The claimant sought damages alleging infringement of design right, breach of confidentiality and passing off. The claimants sold a system for purification of water.
Held: The situations behind the two sets of products were different. Products. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135496