‘It is not right to characterise a claim under regulation 2 of the Community Design Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/2339) as one for a declaration of non-infringement.’
WLR Daily, 15th September 2015
‘In John Kaldor Fabricmaker UK Ltd v Lee Ann Fashions Ltd.  EWHC 3779 (IPEC) (21 Nov 2014) Judge Hacon had to decide whether the fabric used to make the dress in the bottom photo was a copy of the fabric in the top one.’
NIPC Law, 11th December 2014
‘Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs meant that, in order for a design to be considered to have individual character, the overall impression which that design produced on the informed user had to be different from that produced on such a user, not by a combination of features taken in isolation and drawn from a number of earlier designs, but by one or more earlier designs, taken individually. Article 85(2) meant that, in order for a Community design court to treat an unregistered Community design as valid, the right holder of that design was not required to prove that it had individual character within the meaning of article 6, but need only indicate what constituted the individual character of that design, ie, indicated what, in his view, were the element or elements of the design concerned which gave it its individual character.’
WLR Daily, 19th June 2014
Whether Community design is infringed
Court of Appeal
“In determining whether there had been infringement of a registered European Community design, the court was obliged to adopt the standpoint of an informed user, who was more discriminating than the average consumer and was fairly familiar with design issues.”
The Times, 17th October 2007
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“In considering an allegation of breach of a registered Community Design, the court should adopt the standpoint of an ‘informed user’ who was more familiar than the average consumer with design issues. Rather than relying on expert evidence, the court should look closely at the registered design and the allegedly infringing article and ask whether it produced a different overall impression.”
WLR Daily, 10th October 2007
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The ‘sector concerned’ for the purposes of art. 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 was the sector corresponding to the prior art., and not the sector corresponding to the product class indicated in the application for a Community registered design.”
WLR Daily, 19th July 2007
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.