{"id":1311,"date":"2017-05-04T15:04:37","date_gmt":"2017-05-04T14:04:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tidmanlegal.com\/?p=1311"},"modified":"2017-05-04T15:09:39","modified_gmt":"2017-05-04T14:09:39","slug":"design-right-infringement-locked","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tidmanlegal.com\/design-right-infringement-locked\/","title":{"rendered":"Design right all locked up"},"content":{"rendered":"

Design right all locked up<\/h1>\n<\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>
\"Lockers<\/span><\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>

The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) recently considered the various principles that apply when assessing infringement of UK unregistered design right (UDR).<\/p>\n

Unregistered design right<\/h3>\n

A UDR protects the shape and configuration of an article, and automatically attaches to any original design once it has been recorded in a design document, or an article has been made embodying the design.<\/p>\n

Action Storage Systems Limited (Action) brought a claim against G-Force Europe.com Limited and Fletcher European Containers Limited (Defendants) for infringement of UDR in its \u201ceXtreme\u201d storage lockers.<\/p>\n

As is often the case in design right proceedings, the Defendants attacked the validity of the design on a number of grounds.<\/p>\n

Originality<\/h3>\n

Firstly, in the Defendants\u2019 view, the eXtreme locker design lacked originality in that it was copied from prior designs. However, at the outset the Defendants admitted that five features of the design were, in fact, original: (i) the overall dimensions and proportions; (ii) the shape and dimensions of the raised section on the top; (iii) the shape and dimensions of the ribs at the side; (iv) the shape of the border and inset squares at the rear; and (v) the shape and dimensions of the inset section at the base. Even though Action designed its eXtreme locker with an earlier \u201cRemcon\u201d locker \u201cvery much in mind\u201d, judge Hacon considered that there were sufficient differences that the eXtreme locker, as a whole, was original.<\/p>\n

Commonplace<\/h3>\n

Accordingly, Hacon went on to reject the Defendants\u2019 argument that the design of the eXtreme locker was commonplace in the design field in question.<\/p>\n

Method or principle of construction exclusion<\/h3>\n

The Defendants\u2019 argument that the design resulted from a method or principle of construction was also unsuccessful as it was evident that the functions can be achieved by a number of different designs.<\/p>\n

\u201cMust fit\u201d exclusion<\/h3>\n

Finally, the Defendants were partially successful in arguing that the top and bottom of the locker should be excluded from UK UDR. As the lockers were designed so that they were stackable, the top and bottom of the lockers connected so as to prevent the lockers from toppling over. As such, even though this wasn\u2019t a secure fit, the Defendants \u2018must fit\u2019 argument was successful in relation to these features.<\/p>\n

Infringement<\/h3>\n

As a result, the Defendants\u2019 \u201cSuperTuff\u201d lockers were found to have infringed Action\u2019s UDR in:<\/p>\n