Introduction
1.This is an action for infringement of two registered designs, namely 4 020 066 (“’066”) and 4 020 067 (“’067”). Both designs were registered as of 18 May 2011. I will start with what the relevant designs look like. They are as follows.
The ‘066 design
The ‘067 design 2.Both sides proceeded on the basis that the ‘066 design was for the front and back of a hoody bearing a legend which consists of (a) the word London (b) the Union flag and (c) the word England in the particular juxtaposition shown. This was referred to as the “London+Flag+England” legend and I shall use that term. Similarly it was common ground that the 067 design was for the front and back of a T-shirt bearing the same legend. 3.The Claimant (“Mr Erol”) represented himself at trial. His first language is Turkish and although he did his best to conduct the trial in English he was assisted from time to time by an interpreter. The Defendant was represented by Mr Richard Davis of Counsel. The first language of the Defendant’s main witness, Mr Zarguly, was Pashto and his cross-examination was translated into Pashto by the Defendant’s interpreter. The need for translation on at least one side, and sometimes on both sides, meant that cross-examination was slow at times but I am grateful to all for their cooperation.
- RECORDER DOUGLAS CAMPBELL QC :
- Introduction
- The issues
- The witnesses and their evidence
- Legal context
- 1B Requirement of novelty and individual character.
- Cantel Medical (UK) Ltd v ARC Medical Design
- Whether the ‘066 design was (a) new and (b) had individual character as at 18 May 2011.
- Interpretation of the ‘066 design
- Validity over the Urban Attitude brochure
- Validity over Lambert Souvenirs
- Whether the ‘067 design was (a) new and (b) had individual character as at 18 May 2011.
- Whether the Defendant’s garments produce on the informed user an overall impression different from (a) the ‘066 design (b) the ‘067 design.
- Conclusion