Approach to costs
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always aim to approach
legal work in a financially-disciplined way. We offer
competitive rates. Our charging approach is both transparent
and geared to the options open to our clients. Our
solicitors generally charge by reference to time spent but
we can often agree fixed fees for specific work or in some
cases risk-adjusted funding structures.
|
Send us a summary of your circumstances and objectives for a quick response. |
|
 |
DESIGN RIGHT - INFRINGEMENT - SLIDING WARDROBE DOORS - TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION - DESIGN AND COMPONENTS - APPLICABLE EXCLUSIONS
[Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 s.213, s.246.]
CT designed and manufactured sliding wardrobe door systems comprising mirrored doors with a mirror panel mounted in a frame formed from aluminium extrusions, placed behind wooden mouldings. RW and VC were two of CT's competitors against whom CT commenced actions for design right infringement in respect of his wardrobe door systems. CT referred for determination, under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 s.246, whether design right existed.
Held, allowing the reference in part, that design right subsisted in some of the claimed features, as (1) the phrase "any aspect of shape or configuration" in s.213(2) could include materials used in the design, although mere choice of material was excluded by s.213(3); (2) although a given shape or configuration arising from a type of construction could be protected, this would not be the case where a wide range of articles could be produced using the same construction methods, as this was excluded by s.213(3); (3) in the instant case, whilst claims for the overall external appearance of the doors were not based on a type of construction method, claims for the general concept of concealing aluminium extrusions by the use of mouldings were excluded by s.213(3); (4) the "must fit" exclusion under s.213(3)(b)(I) was not restricted to articles designed by the same person; (5) the "must fit" exclusion could also apply to components or features for which there was more than one possible design, Ocular Sciences Ltd v. Aspect Vision Care Ltd (No. 2) [1977] R.P.C. 289, [1997] C.L.Y. 3894 referred to, and (6) adding mouldings to the aluminium extrusions went beyond mere decorative surface features, so that they were capable of design right protection, Mark Wilkinson Furniture Ltd v. Woodcraft Design (Radcliffe) Ltd [1998] F.S.R. 63 [1997] C.L.Y. 1034 referred to.
CHRISTOPHER TASKER'S DESIGN RIGHT REFERENCES, Re [2001] R.P.C. 3, Peter Hayward, PO.
"Current Law" March 2001
|
|
Accessibility
We take instructions from UK & international clients. Our independent lawyers are available by email, telephone & fax. With central Bristol offices we are just 90 minutes from London by road or rail and 15 minutes from Bristol International Airport. We can travel to meetings if required.
|
Independent approach
We are an independent professional law firm here, not a legal factory turning out mass-produced products. In our experience, determined case-handling is more likely to produce effective results.
|
Turnaround time
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. look to input not only
careful legal work and precision but also the determination
to keep matters moving. They aim to work in clients' real
interests with energy and pragmatism.
|
Communication skills
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always try to open up the
legal process by giving advice and explaining options to
clients in a concise and straightforward way, identifying
clear courses of action whatever the technical or legal
complexities of the subject. |
|
