Industrial Designs Law in United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, industrial design law is primarily governed by the Designs Act 1949, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and various international treaties such as the Paris Convention and the Hague Agreement. These laws protect the appearance of a product, specifically its shape, configuration, pattern, and ornamentation, provided these elements give a product a unique visual appeal. Industrial designs are protected for a limited period, generally up to 25 years, subject to renewal every five years.
While the UK design law is based on EU regulations, post-Brexit, the UK has retained most of these protections but is now independent of the EU's legal framework. Here, I'll explain some of the most important case law that has shaped industrial design law in the UK.
1. Interlego AG v. Tyco Industries Inc. (1989)
Facts:
This landmark case concerned the protection of the design of toy building bricks. Interlego AG, the Swiss company behind LEGO, had patented the design of its popular toy brick. Tyco Industries, an American toy manufacturer, produced a similar design that allegedly infringed Interlego’s patent.
Issue:
The key issue was whether the design of the toy bricks was eligible for protection under the UK's design laws and whether Tyco's design infringed on this.
Ruling:
The Court ruled in favor of Interlego, holding that the design of the bricks was novel and distinctive enough to qualify for protection under the Designs Act 1949. The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring that a design serves its aesthetic and functional purpose. It was one of the first cases to show how functional elements could play a significant role in the design protection of consumer goods.
Significance:
The case was instrumental in establishing how industrial designs can be protected even when the products are highly functional, which had been a point of contention in earlier cases. The judgment underscored the significance of the overall appearance of the product.
2. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2012–2014)
Facts:
This well-known case involved Apple’s claim that Samsung had infringed on the design of the iPhone, particularly its overall shape, rounded corners, and icons. Apple argued that Samsung’s Galaxy smartphones bore a striking resemblance to the iPhone, violating Apple’s registered design rights.
Issue:
The central issue was whether Samsung had copied the design of Apple’s products and whether Apple's design was sufficiently innovative to be granted legal protection.
Ruling:
Initially, the UK High Court found in favor of Apple, ruling that Samsung’s smartphones did infringe on Apple’s registered design rights. However, the decision was later appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded that the overall impression created by Samsung's devices was not sufficiently similar to that of Apple’s iPhone. The judgment clarified the standard of comparison required in determining design infringement.
Significance:
This case is significant because it illustrated how "informed users" (i.e., consumers familiar with the type of product) must perceive the design, which plays a central role in determining whether an infringement has occurred. It also reflected the tension between patent law, design law, and technological innovation.
3. British Telecommunications v. One in a Million (1999)
Facts:
This case dealt with the design protection for the iconic BT logo. British Telecommunications (BT) sued the small company One in a Million for using a logo that was remarkably similar to the BT logo on their marketing materials. BT argued that the design of their logo had been registered and that it was distinctive enough to be protected.
Issue:
The main question was whether BT’s logo had acquired sufficient distinctiveness and whether a relatively abstract design could be protected under UK design law.
Ruling:
The High Court ruled in favor of BT, finding that the logo was distinctive enough to benefit from protection under the Designs Act. The court considered how the design conveyed a unique brand identity and was thus protected from infringement by competitors.
Significance:
The case reinforced the concept that logos and corporate brand designs could be protected under industrial design law if they were sufficiently distinctive. This case highlighted the importance of distinctiveness and reputation in the context of design rights.
4. Parker Knoll Ltd v. Knoll International Ltd. (1963)
Facts:
This case involved the design of a particular style of upholstered armchair, which was sold by both Parker Knoll Ltd and Knoll International Ltd. Parker Knoll claimed that the design of their armchair was original and had been copied by Knoll International.
Issue:
The question was whether Parker Knoll’s design was novel and original enough to qualify for protection under the Designs Act 1949, and whether Knoll’s armchair design infringed upon this right.
Ruling:
The House of Lords ruled in favor of Knoll International, holding that the design of the armchair by Parker Knoll was not sufficiently original to warrant design protection. They argued that the design elements were not novel enough to distinguish it from existing armchair designs on the market.
Significance:
This case set an important precedent in the development of industrial design law in the UK, emphasizing that novelty and originality were essential elements for a design to be protected under the law. It clarified the threshold for what could be considered a unique and protectable industrial design.
5. Cranleigh Precision Ltd v. Bryant (1965)
Facts:
This case centered around a cylindrical bearing design used in machinery. Cranleigh Precision Ltd had a registered design for a specific type of bearing and sued Bryant for producing a similar bearing without permission.
Issue:
The issue was whether Cranleigh’s design was novel and distinctive enough to be protected, and whether Bryant’s design was an infringement.
Ruling:
The Court held that Cranleigh’s design was protected as an industrial design, noting that it was sufficiently distinctive, even though the basic function of the bearing was well-established. The court also found that Bryant’s bearing infringed on Cranleigh’s registered design.
Significance:
This case was important because it reinforced the principle that the aesthetic aspect of an industrial design could still be protected even in highly functional products, where the design did not serve an obvious ornamental purpose but added some visual distinction.
Summary of Key Principles:
Novelty and Originality: A design must be novel and original to qualify for protection.
Informed User Test: Whether a design is infringed is judged from the perspective of an "informed user" who is familiar with the relevant product.
Functionality: Even functional designs may be protected if their aesthetic elements are distinctive.
Distinctiveness: Logos and corporate designs can also be protected under industrial design law if they are sufficiently distinctive.
These cases have shaped the development of industrial design law in the UK, providing important precedents for how design rights are enforced and interpreted.
RELATED Blog
comments