HomeAccessibilityIndependent approachTurnaround timeCommunication skillsFee structures
solicitors - commercial legal work

Arbitration & mediation
Assets/shares buy/sell
Business start ups
Commercial & transactions
Company law & compliance
Competition law (UK & EU)
Confidentiality & privacy
Construction & building
Contracts drafting
Conveyancing (commercial)
Copyright (infringement & licensing)
Debt recovery & winding up
Designs (registration & infringement)
Directors' duties & liabilities
E-commerce contracts
Employment (contracts, regulations & claims)
Franchising
Intellectual property
Joint ventures
Libel (defamation)
Licensing (premises)
Litigation (commercial)
Music & entertainment
Negligence (general)
Partnerships
Passing-off claims
Patents (infringement)
Planning representation
Professional (regulatory)
Professional negligence
Reinsurance & insurance
Shareholders
Software (licensing)
Sports contracts
Trade marks (trademarks)

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

E-mail us with details of your enquiry on design-registration@humphreys.co.uk
Include your telephone number,
fax number and address.

Tel (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2662 
Fax (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2722




Relevant Material



Humphreys & Co., solicitors Bristol



Also recommended by The Legal 500 Europe, Middle East and Africa 2009 - 2010.


Click here for information about the work we do for private clients.

© Copyright Humphreys & Co. Solicitors

Home Page