header-logo header-logo

18 October 2007
Issue: 7293 / Categories: Legal News , Intellectual property
printer mail-detail

Appeal court clears air on community design rights

News

The first ruling on the scope of the Registered Community Design Right  (CDR) has been handed down by the Court of Appeal.

Bird & Bird, which acted for Reckitt Benckiser in its high-profile dispute with Procter & Gamble says the case has major significance for designers and brands worldwide.

Bird & Bird partner, Lorna Brazell, says the case is groundbreaking as this is the first authoritative guidance on the CDR and has also set an important precedent in Europe, clarifying for the first time what constitutes the protection available to an original design.

In February 2006, Procter & Gamble sued Reckitt Benckiser over the design of the container of its air freshener Air Wick Odour Stop, claiming it infringed the Registered Community Design which it had obtained for its Febreze product.

The High Court ruled in favour of Procter & Gamble, finding that the two designs were too similar, but the appeal court this week overruled this decision asserting that  there was sufficient difference of detail between them. 

Brazell says the decision is important for all brand owners and all those involved in consumer product industries where the use of designs is paramount.

“We now have clear guidance on what protection an original design can attract and significantly a systematic approach to get there.”

Issue: 7293 / Categories: Legal News , Intellectual property
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll