NAVIGATING DESIGN LAW David Musker
2021
Copyright © 2021, David Charles Musker The moral rights of the author have been asserted First edition published 2021 All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of any part of this book in any manner or form (other than in accordance with the law) without prior written permission is prohibited. Cover image: USD135,282 (Thomas C. Green).
Published and placed on sale by: The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys 2nd Floor Halton House 20 – 23 Holborn London EC1N 2JD United Kingdom Tel: +44 20 7405 9450 Fax: +44 20 7430 0471 Website: www.cipa.org.uk
ISBN 978-0-903932-74-5 Printed and bound by Mimeo – www.mimeo.co.uk
Foreword Design protection is important for innovative businesses in the UK, and the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) has always been interested and involved in making the nation’s design laws. David Musker, as a Fellow member of CIPA and sometime Chair of its Designs & Copyright Committee, knows his way around post-Brexit UK design law as well as anyone in the UK. His teaching experience helps make Navigating Design Law accessible to students, but this publication will also be useful to practitioners. We welcome the chance to publish this book. Alicia Instone, CIPA President, November 2021
About the author David Musker is a Chartered Patent Attorney and Trade Mark Attorney holding a Higher Courts Litigation Certificate. He has served as Chair of the CIPA Designs & Copyright Committee and President of the Design Commission of the Union of European Practitioners in Intellectual Property. He has practised for 35 years in industry and private practice, and is currently Professor of International Design Law at Queen Mary University of London and a consultant to Maucher Jenkins.
NAVIGATING DESIGN LAW Contents Table of Cases.......................................................................................... vii Table of Legislation.................................................................................xxi Abbreviations used...............................................................................xxix Part 1 – Introduction and Overview........................................................ 1 Part 2 – Registered Designs..................................................................37 Part 3 – International Designs..............................................................131 Part 4 – Supplementary Unregistered Designs and Continuing Unregistered Community Designs..................... 165 Part 5 – Copyright protection of designs.........................................185 Part 6 – UK (“National”) Unregistered Design Right...................... 211 Part 7 – Designers, Ownership, and Property................................ 247 Part 8 – Exploitation.............................................................................. 267 Part 9 – Litigation.................................................................................. 283 Part 10 – Searching...............................................................................309 ANNEXES...................................................................................................315 INDEX........................................................................................................ 377
TABLE OF CASES “*” indicates that the case is listed as a “leading case” in the commentary. Links are, in order of preference, to BAILII, RPC or other freely accessible text sources.
UK COURT CASES A. Fulton Co Ltd v Totes Isotoner (UK) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1514, [2004] RPC 16..... 6.7.1, 6.3.2.4 A. Pressler & Co. Ltd v Gartside & Co (of Manchester) Ltd and Widd & Owen Ltd (1933) 50 RPC 240.................................................................................................................7.1.3, 7.1.5 A.J. and M.A. Levy’s Trade Mark (No. 2) [1999] RPC 358.............................................................2.8.2.4 Abanka DD v Abanca Corp [2017] EWHC 2428 (Ch), [2018] Bus. LR 612...................................2.8.1 Abraham Moon & Sons Ltd v Thornber [2012] EWPCC 37, [2013] FSR 17 ..................................................................................................5.5.1, 5.5.3.2, 5.5.3.3, 5.6.2, 5.6.6, 6.2.1 Accord Healthcare v Research Corporation Technologies [2017] EWHC 2711 (Pat), [2018] RPC 4 ...........................................................................................................................................................7.4.3 Action Storage Systems Ltd v G-Force Europe.Com Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 3151 (IPEC), [2017] FSR 18....................................................... 6.3.2.2, 6.3.2.5, 6.3.1 Al Bassam Trade Mark [1995] RPC 511............................................................................... 2.9.6.1, 7.5.2 Allen & Hanbury Ltd’s (Salbutamol) Patent [1987] RPC 327........................................................9.4.2.1 *American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] UKHL 1, [1975] RPC 513..................................9.4.1.2 *Amp Inc v Utilux Pty Ltd [1971] FSR 572, [1972] RPC 103 (HL)...1.2.2, 1.3.3.2, 2.1.4, 2.9.2, 2.9.3.2 Antec International Ltd v South Western Chicks (Warren) Ltd [1997] FSR 278................................9.5 Antiphon AB.’s Application [1984] RPC 1......................................................................................2.4.16.3 Apple Computer Inc.’s Design Applications [2002] FSR 38 (RDAT)................................ 2.1.1.4, 2.9.2.5 Apple Inc v Arcadia Trading Ltd [2017] EWHC 440 (Ch), [2017] FSR 40......................................2.8.1 Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1142, [2002] RPC 5.......................................5.5.6 Autospin (Oil Seals) Ltd v Beehive Spinning [1995] RPC 683........................................................5.5.5.3 B4U Network (Europe) Ltd v Performing Right Society Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1236, [2014] FSR 17........................................................................................7.2.2 *Bailey v Haynes [2006] EWPCC 5, [2007] FSR 10................................................................6.2.6, 6.3.1 Bayerische Motoren Werke v Round and Metal Ltd [2012] EWHC 2099 (Pat), [2013] FSR 18 ....................................................................................................................................................7.7.2, 4.4 Bayer’s Design (1907) RPC 24................................................................................................ 2.9.3.1, 6.2.6 *BBC Worldwide Ltd v Pally Screen Printing Ltd [1998] FSR 665......................................................5.6 Best Buy v Worldwide Sales Corp [2011] EWCA Civ 618, [2011] FSR 30..........................................9.5 Beverly Hills Teddy Bear v PMS [2019] EWHC 2419 (IPEC), [2020] FSR 11.............................4.6.3.1 vii
TABLE OF LEGISLATION Links are to the text on https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ where available. Note that this site may not be fully up to date. The IPO maintains relatively up-to-date consolidated versions of the Registered Designs Act and Rules on its website – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/registered-designs-act-and-rules.
UK LEGISLATION REGISTERED DESIGNS ACT 1949 (C. 88) s. 1.................................... 2.1.1, 2.4.7, 2.1.2, 2.3.5 s. 1B....................... 2.1.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.1.1, 2.2.5, 2.3.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.6 s. 1C................................. 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 1.4.8, 6.2.8 s. 1D................................................................2.1.5 s. 2................................................. 7.1.3, 7.1.4, 7.2 s. 3............................................ 2.4.7, 2.4.10, 7.5.2 s. 3A....................... 2.4.9, 7.6.1, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.8.1 s. 3B.......................... 2.4.3.2, 2.4.11, 2.4.12, 2.8.1 s. 3C..............................................................2.4.12 s. 3D................................................................2.8.1 s. 5...................................................................2.4.8 s. 7..........2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 9.4.4.1, 1.4.8, 2.4.3.2 s. 7A............................................2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5, 4.3, 1.4.8, 2.1.1, 6.7.9 s. 7B................................................................2.3.6 s. 8.......................................................2.4.15, 1.4.8 s. 8A..............................................................2.4.15 s. 8B..............................................................2.4.15 s. 11.................................................................2.8.1 s. 11ZA.................. 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 7.6.1, 2.8.1 s. 11ZB....................................... 2.6.1, 7.6.1, 2.8.1 s. 11ZC.................................................2.6.1, 2.8.1 s. 11ZD....................... 2.6.1, 2.4.3.2, 2.4.11, 2.8.1 s. 11ZE..................................................2.6.1, 2.8.1 s. 11ZF............................................................2.8.1 s. 11A.......................................................2.8.1, 8.3
s. 11AB..............................................................8.3 s. 12.......................................................8.4.1, 8.4.2 s. 12A......................................... 2.5.2, 2.5.4, 1.4.8 s. 12B......................................... 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 1.4.8 s. 13..............................................................2.4.4.2 s. 14........................ 2.4.4, 7.6.1, 2.2.5, 2.4.7, 2.4.8 s. 15ZA...........................................................3.3.1 s. 15A..............................................................7.3.1 s. 15B......................................... 7.4.1, 7.4.2, 7.6.2 s. 15C.................................................................8.2 s. 17................................................ 2.4.2.1, 2.4.2.2 s. 18...............................................................2.4.13 s. 19.......................................................7.5.2, 7.6.2 s. 20.................................................................7.6.1 s. 21.................................................. 2.4.16, 2.4.11 s. 22.................................... 2.4.2.1, 2.4.2.2, 2.4.16 s. 23.................................................................2.4.6 s. 24A.......................................................7.6.2, 9.4 s. 24B.................................................................9.4 s. 24C.................................................................9.4 s. 24D.................................................................9.4 s. 24E..........................................................9.3, 9.4 s. 24F...........................................................9.2, 9.4 s. 24G.................................................................9.4 s. 25.................................................................9.4.7 s. 26....................................................................9.5 s. 26A.................................................................9.5
xxi
PART 1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW “Trying to navigate by the chart provided by this crude statute is a risky business.”1
1.1 INTRODUCTION – LEARNING DESIGN LAW............................................................. 2 1.2
DESIGNS IN THE ECONOMY.................................................................................... 4
1.3
UK DESIGN PROTECTION – A BRIEF HISTORY........................................................15
1.4
DESIGN PROTECTION – THE INTERNATIONAL NORMS......................................... 23
1.5
UK DESIGN PROTECTION – THE CURRENT SITUATION IN OVERVIEW..................29
1.6
PROTECTION OF DESIGNS BY OTHER RIGHTS..................................................... 33
1
Jacob LJ, Dyson v Qualtex [2006] EWCA Civ 166, [2006] RPC 31 at [126].
1
NAVIGATING DESIGN LAW
Registered design and patent protection reflect the same balance between public and private interest, implemented by the combination of time-limited protection with a novelty standard. The same is true of SUD. There is thus no real risk that one can be misused to perpetuate the protection granted by the other. Whilst both involve a combination of text and drawings, in a patent the text has supremacy and the drawings are merely for explanation and illustration, and in a design the reverse is true. As a consequence, their scopes are very different – “Design right does not therefore protect ideas. Ideas are protected by patent law.”178 However, a design can embody a patented invention, and fall within the scope of a patent, and the same drawings may be included in both. The scope for overlap in practice is regulated by exclusions:179 • For registered designs (and SUD), the exclusion of features which are solely dictated by the product’s technical function (see 2.1.4); • For UKUDR, the exclusion of methods and principles of construction (see 6.2.6); and • For patents, the exclusion of those which relate to “artistic work[s] or any other aesthetic creation whatsoever”180 as such. Products with both technical and aesthetic features are therefore capable of protection by patent and design in parallel, though the rights are based on different features of the product. Where a single feature has both functional and aesthetic benefits (e.g. the pattern of ribs in Cow v Cannon181), it ought also to be protectable by both systems – at least, if it does not provide the only way of achieving that function, and if the aesthetic appeal is deliberate. A purely functional feature involving no aesthetic considerations can be protected by patent and by UKUDR, though with very different scopes.
178 Lewison J in Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Premium Aircraft Interiors Group [2009] EWHC 26 (Pat), [2009] ECDR 11 at [25] (in relation to UKUDR). 179 See, generally, David Musker, The Overlap between Patent and Design Protection, Chapter 2 in Overlapping Intellectual Property Rights, eds Neil Wilkof and Shamnad Basheer, OUP 2012. 180 PA s. 1(2)(b). 181 Cow (PB) & Co Ltd v Cannon Rubber Manufacturers (No.1) [1959] RPC 947 (CA).
36
PART 2 REGISTERED DESIGNS “So many, so detailed are the amendments that it is like a sculptor crafting a cat out of a dog.”1
2.1 SUBSISTENCE...................................................................................................... 39 2.2 VALIDITY – POST-2001 DESIGNS...........................................................................51 2.3 INFRINGEMENT.................................................................................................... 65 2.4
REGISTERED DESIGNS – PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE........................................ 74
2.5 UK EFFECT OF REGISTERED AND PENDING COMMUNITY AND INTERNATIONAL DESIGNS................................................................................. 102 2.6
INVALIDATION & CANCELLATION........................................................................107
2.7
IPO OPINIONS....................................................................................................... 111
2.8
APPEALS............................................................................................................................... 112
2.9
VALIDITY – PRE-2001 (“EXISTING”) DESIGNS...................................................... 119
1
Peter Prescott QC, Oakley v Animal [2005] EWHC 210 (Ch) at [39].
37
NAVIGATING DESIGN LAW
2.9.6 ENTITLEMENT, AND OTHER GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION Former RDA Sections
Former 11
Leading Cases
Ifejika v Ifejika (CA), Masterman’s Design (RDAT)
Related RDA Sections
Former 1(2), 3(2)
Related CDPA Sections
–
Related UK Rules
RDR 1995 r. 14, 15
Section 11 Cancellation of registration. (2) At any time after a design has been registered any person interested may apply to the registrar for the cancellation of the registration of the design… on any other ground on which the registrar could have refused to register the design…
2.9.6.1 Entitlement Amongst the grounds on which a design could be refused, and thus on which it could be cancelled, were that the applicant was not genuinely “the person claiming to be” the proprietor401 or the owner of a corresponding UKUDR.402 In Woodhouse v Architectural Lighting403 a design was cancelled on this basis, because the actual applicant had no claim to be the owner. In Ifejika v Ifejika,404 it was held to be sufficient that the proprietor had equitable title at the time of filing. However, mere good faith is insufficient.405 If there are joint proprietors, one of them cannot file on their own – if he does so, the other can apply to cancel.406 2.9.6.2 Other Grounds, and Discretion Other grounds of refusal and hence of cancellation of an existing design include lack of clarity in the representations or specimen, statement of novelty or indication of product.407 The Registrar also had a general discretion to refuse designs, for example where the “use would be contrary or at least would be seen by a section of the public to be contrary to morality.”408
401 402 403 404 405 406 407
RDA s. 1(2). RDA s. 3(2). Woodhouse UK PLC v Architectural Lighting Systems [2005] ECPCC 25, [2006] RPC 1. [2010] EWCA Civ 563, [2010] FSR 29. Al Bassam Trade Mark [1995] RPC 511 – a trade mark case. Ifejika v Ifejika [2011] EWPCC 31, [2012] FSR 6. An example case is SRIS Reference O/533/02, Cyril Sloggett v Hadley Industries plc (Design) [2002] UKIntelP o53302 (where unsuccessful objections were made under Rules 14 & 15). 408 Masterman’s Design, [1991] RPC 89.
130
PART 3 INTERNATIONAL DESIGNS 3.1 GENERAL NATURE OF THE HAGUE AGREEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL DESIGNS...................................................................................132 3.2 THE “INTERNATIONAL PHASE” – FILING AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE WIPO......134 3.3 THE “NATIONAL PHASE” – EXAMINATION, OBJECTIONS, REFUSALS BY THE NATIONAL OFFICES............................................................................................ 146 3.4
AFTER REGISTRATION........................................................................................ 151
3.5
DESIGN PROTECTION IN THE “IP5”.................................................................... 156
3.6 DESIGN REGISTRATION IN THE G20 GROUP OF MAJOR ECONOMIES............... 162
131
PART 4 SUPPLEMENTARY UNREGISTERED DESIGNS & CONTINUING UNREGISTERED COMMUNITY DESIGNS 4.1 UNREGISTERED COMMUNITY DESIGNS............................................................. 166 4.2 EFFECT OF BREXIT............................................................................................. 168 4.3
INFRINGEMENT AND COPYING.......................................................................... 169
4.4
REPAIR CLAUSE DEFENCE.................................................................................. 171
4.5
PROOF OF EXISTENCE AND PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY...................................172
4.6
CREATION AND COMMENCEMENT OF UCD AND CUCD..................................... 173
165
NAVIGATING DESIGN LAW
Much other material published during the Brexit process was similarly open-ended, partly because the UK was seeking to negotiate the issue with the EU. If the UK government and the EU Commission were correct to argue before the CJ38 that Art. 11(2) does not import any limitation on the place of a disclosure commencing UCD, then Art. 11(2) as amended to implement SUD should be read in the same way.
38 In the Beverly Hills Teddy Bear referral C-728/19.
184
PART 5 COPYRIGHT PROTECTION OF DESIGNS “It really began when in the late 1960s and early 1970s it was realised by the lawyers that copyright in drawings, particularly engineering drawings, could prevent the reproduction of those drawings in three-dimensional form”1
5.1
THE INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK.................................................................... 186
5.2 “WORKS OF APPLIED ART”................................................................................. 188 5.3 “CUMULATION” OF COPYRIGHT AND DESIGN PROTECTION – THE EVOLVING EU CASE LAW............................................................................ 189 5.4
UK COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR WORKS OF APPLIED ART AND DESIGNS...... 191
5.5
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN DESIGNS..................................................... 194
5.6
SECTION 51........................................................................................................203
1
Jacob LJ, Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 166, [2006] RPC 31 at [3].
185
NAVIGATING DESIGN LAW
In two Commonwealth cases, however, works were found to be works of artistic craftsmanship: •
•
Wildash v Klein124, wire sculptures of animals (“The present handicraft works in issue are “works of artistic craftsmanship”. They demonstrate the requisite artistic quality and are the product of the requisite craftsmanship. Each is made by hand and has artistic character that is likely to be valued or appreciated by its owner.”) But there was no infringement. Bonz v Cooke125, hand-knitted woollen sweaters. Again, the infringement claim failed.
In Response Clothing v Edinburgh Woollen Mill126 Judge Hacon applied Bonz v Cooke to give “works of artistic craftsmanship” a broad interpretation covering fabric patterns set up on a loom, in order to conform to the CJ Cofemel case discussed above. His formulation of the “artistic” part of the term was to require “an artist in that he or she used their creative ability to produce something which has aesthetic appeal”. This appears to be the first case in which the UK courts have found copyright subsistence and infringement of a work of artistic craftsmanship. In reaching his decision, the Judge recognised that the House of Lords which heard Hensher v Restawhile might have come to the opposite conclusion on subsistence if they had heard it before the Cofemel judgment. It seems likely that Mann J., who decided Lucasfilm, would have done so too. 5.6.7.3 Engravings Hi Tech Autoparts v Towergate127 concerned a rubber mat for the feet of a car driver moulded from metal plates.128 The plates were held to be an engraving. See also Wham-O v Lincoln,129 a New Zealand Court of Appeal case concerning a Frisbee™ and the prototypes and moulds for it. 5.6.7.4 Works of Architecture s. 4 defines a work of architecture as being a building or model thereof. A “design document” showing the shape and configuration of a building130 therefore escapes s. 51, as the building depicted is a work of architecture, and hence a statutory “artistic work”. An example case finding infringement of architectural drawings both by making drawings and by building houses is Cala Homes,131 and a wholly unsuccessful example is Pearce v Ove Arup.132
124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132
[2004] NTSC 17. Bonz Group (Pty) Ltd v Cooke [1994] 3 NZLR 216. [2020] EWHC 148 (IPEC). Hi Tech Autoparts Ltd v Towergate Two Ltd (No. 2) [2002] FSR 15, [2002] FSR 16. A widely criticised decision, but in line with Wham-O v Lincoln. It was considered without criticism by the Court of Appeal in Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 166, [2006] RPC 31. Wham-O Manufacturing Co v Lincoln Industries Ltd [1985] RPC 127. If a building is in fact an “article” for the purposes of s. 51. Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd [1995] EWHC 7 (Ch), [1995] FSR 818. Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd [2001] EWHC Ch 455, [2001] EWHC Ch 481.
210
PART 6 UK (“NATIONAL”) UNREGISTERED DESIGN RIGHT “It has the merit of being short. It has no other… words and phrases such as ‘commonplace’, ‘dependent’, ‘aspect of shape or configuration of part of an article’ and ‘design field in question’ are full of uncertainty in themselves and pose near impossible factual questions…”1
6.1 GENERAL.............................................................................................................212 6.2
SUBSISTENCE....................................................................................................214
6.3
ORIGINALITY...................................................................................................... 223
6.4
QUALIFICATION FOR UKUDR.............................................................................. 229
6.5
DURATION.......................................................................................................... 232
6.6
COMMENCEMENT AND FIXATION – DESIGN DOCUMENT OR MODEL................ 233
6.7
INFRINGEMENT OF UKUDR................................................................................. 234
6.8
LICENCES OF RIGHT.......................................................................................... 242
6.9
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRY, AND APPEALS..................................... 243
6.10 SEMICONDUCTOR TOPOGRAPHIES................................................................ 245
1
Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 166, [2006] RPC 31, Jacob LJ at [14].
211
PART 7 DESIGNERS, OWNERSHIP, AND PROPERTY 7.1 DESIGNERS.........................................................................................................248 7.2 FIRST OWNERSHIP............................................................................................. 252 7.3
PROPERTY IN DESIGNS...................................................................................... 255
7.4
ASSIGNMENTS...................................................................................................258
7.5
LINKAGES BETWEEN DIFFERENT RIGHTS IN DESIGNS....................................... 261
7.6
DESIGN APPLICANTS......................................................................................... 262
247
PART 8 EXPLOITATION 8.1
TERMS IN DESIGN-COMMISSIONING CONTRACTS...........................................268
8.2 VOLUNTARY LICENSING..................................................................................... 269 8.3
COMPULSORY LICENSING AND LICENCES OF RIGHT........................................ 272
8.4
CROWN USE OF DESIGNS.................................................................................. 273
8.5
DESIGN PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT.................................................................. 277
267
PART 9 LITIGATION 9.1 INTERPRETATION OF REGISTERED DESIGNS...................................................... 284 9.2 STANDING TO SUE............................................................................................. 286 9.3 COURTS WITH JURISDICTION........................................................................... 287 9.4
REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT......................................................................... 288
9.5
THREATS............................................................................................................ 303
9.6
PRIVILEGE.......................................................................................................... 305
9.7 CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT..................................................................................306 9.8
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT..................................................................... 307
283
PART 10 SEARCHING 10.1 Design searching generally............................................................................. 310 10.2 Name and Number Searches.......................................................................... 310 10.3
Watching and Monitoring Searches............................................................... 310
10.4
Subject-Matter Searches................................................................................ 311
309
NAVIGATING DESIGN LAW
Whilst the primary tool for limiting the scope of infringement clearance searching is classification, some limited ‘‘belt and braces’’ protection against mis-classification may be obtained by a supplementary search using verbal indications of product. However, since indications of product are both non-limiting and uncontrolled, a clearance search limited by word alone should not be regarded as satisfactory. In general, whilst clearance searching is prudent, and can often be successful in revealing obstacles, the vagaries of design searching mean that a clear search cannot always be taken as a guarantee that no obstacles exist. It is therefore important to inform clients of the limitations inherent in infringement clearance searching of designs. Whilst the advice given will depend upon the search strategy adopted, it will usually be appropriate to make the following points: (1) The search will not have covered applications which have been filed but not yet registered, or those which have been filed abroad and are still within the six-month priority period for UK filing. Any such design can remain secret for up to 12 months from filing date. It may be prudent therefore to perform a top-up search after a year. (2) Although the most relevant classes will have been searched, in principle, the design to be cleared could infringe a design in another class. It is also possible that relevant designs have been mis-classified elsewhere by the applicant or the Office. (3) Although the searcher has attempted to cite all relevant designs, he/she is not an ‘‘informed user’’ in the sector concerned and it is possible that such a user would have a different view of similarity. (4) Although design records have been searched, it is possible that the product might infringe other registered rights such as trademarks. (5) If the design to be cleared has been copied from another, it may infringe copyright or unregistered design rights, or constitute “passing off”.
314
ANNEXES
1.
International design law treaty provisions........................................................ 316
2.
Registered Designs Act 1949 – Concordance with EU provisions.....................319
3.
The Registered Designs Act 1949 pre-2001 – relevant sections.......................320
4.
The Registered Designs Rules 1995 – relevant rules........................................ 325
5.
Provisions on Supplementary Unregistered Designs....................................... 327
6.
Provisions on Continuing Unregistered Community Designs......................... xxx
315