CLASS 99
The blog for design law, in Europe and worldwide. This weblog is written by a team of design experts and fans. To contribute, or join us, or for any other reason, email class99@marques.org.
Want to receive Class 99 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.
Click here subscribe for free.
Who we all are...
FRIDAY, 3 JUNE 2011
Access plus inspiration need not mean copying
"It's a Wrap! Albert Packaging v Nampak [2011] EWPCC 15" is the title of Matt Fisher's excellent note on the case of that name, in which Judge Colin Birss QC of the Patents County Court, England and Wales, needed a two-day trial and 110 paragraphs of judgment to get to the result -- a ruling that the defendant's sandwich carton did not infringe UK unregistered design right in the claimant's sandwich cartons, despite their substantial similarity.
Why the great length? This was largely the fault of the evidence, which required careful attention: the defendant had access to the allegedly infringed design and was clearly influenced by it. However, the ingredients of close similarity, access and influence do not of themselves equate to a finding of infringement -- as was the case here where the provenance of the defendant's design can be sufficiently demonstrated. In such a case there is not infringement under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.226, which requires "copying the design so as to produce articles exactly or substantially to that design". Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 14.56
Tags: proof of copying,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA256
Access plus inspiration need not mean copying
Why the great length? This was largely the fault of the evidence, which required careful attention: the defendant had access to the allegedly infringed design and was clearly influenced by it. However, the ingredients of close similarity, access and influence do not of themselves equate to a finding of infringement -- as was the case here where the provenance of the defendant's design can be sufficiently demonstrated. In such a case there is not infringement under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.226, which requires "copying the design so as to produce articles exactly or substantially to that design". Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 14.56
Tags: proof of copying,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA256
MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.
The Class 99 Archive
