HomeAccessibilityIndependent approachTurnaround timeCommunication skillsFee structures
solicitors -  commercial legal work

Arbitration
Assets/shares buy/sell
Commercial advice
Company law
Company start ups
Competition law
Confidentiality
Construction & building
Contract advice
Conveyancing
Copyright
Debt recovery
Design rights
Directors duties
Discrimination
Dismissal law
E-commerce
Employment
European law
Franchising
Infringement
Insurance
Intellectual property
Joint ventures
Libel
Licensing (premises)
Litigation (commercial)
Merchandising
Music & entertainment
Negligence (general)
Partnerships
Passing-off
Patents
Planning
Professional negligence
Redundacy
Reinsurance
Shareholders
Software
Sponsorship
Sports contracts
Trade Marks (Trademarks)
Unfair dismissal

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




Infringing registered design right
 
Intellectual property - acquiescence - estoppel - must fit
 
Is the British design registration system also being used to register trademarks?
 
ORIGINALITY OF GARMENT DESIGN
 
DESIGN AND COMPONENTS
 
DESIGN RIGHT AND REGISTERED DESIGN
 
Grants towards legal costs: IP Wales
 


Humphreys & Co., solicitors Bristol



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

© Copyright Humphreys & Co., solicitors

Home Page