Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2010] All ER (D) 319 (Jul)
Neutral Citation: [2010] EWHC 1923 (Pat)
Court: Chancery Division, Patents Court
Judge:

Arnold J
Representation Henry Carr QC and Hugo Cuddigan (instructed by Wragge & Co LLP) for the claimant.
  Iain Purvis QC and Anna Edwards-Stuart (instructed by EMW Picton Howell LLP) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 29 July 2010

Catchwords

Design - Design right - Infringement - Claimant introducing cyclone dust-separation technology for vacuum cleaners and obtaining registered design - Defendant importing and marketing multi-stage vacuum cleaner - Claimant issuing proceedings for infringement - Interpretation of relevant European legislation - Whether overall impressions created by parties' products different - Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 98/71, arts 7(1), 9 - Council Regulation (EC) 6/2002, reg 8(1).

The Case

Design Design right. The Chancery Division, Patents Court, dismissed the claimant's claim against the defendant for infringement of its registered design for vacuum cleaners, having construed certain of the relevant legislative provisions, on the basis that the overall impressions produced by the two designs were different.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.

Lexis®Library

  • An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
  • Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
  • Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
  • The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports