May 2004
03-11-2004
Court finds reputable Italian design studio copied pineapple motif.
On 28 April 2004 the High Court found that a company importing a fabric called “Pineapple†into the
The infringing fabric was first spotted by the English designer of the original fabric in a shop in
(a) Was the pineapple design sufficiently original to be protected by copyright; and
(b) Were the similarities between the two fabrics were so great that they could only be the result of copying and not independent creation.
On the question of originality the judge was shown a number of examples of architectural pineapples in an attempt to persuade him that the design was commonplace and not warranting protection. However the judge accepted that the simplified and stylized version of the original design was sufficiently different to qualify for copyright protection.
The way that the courts tend to approach proof of copying is to look at the similarities between the designs. If they are sufficiently similar, it falls upon the designer of the fabric alleged to infringe to explain how he came up with the design. In this case the suggestion that the Italians studio ( Dubei) had derived their design from a book cataloguing the V&A’s textile collection was rejected as there was nothing in the book sufficiently similar. The judge said there was no adequate explanation as to the genesis of the design.
Comment:
This case contains a couple of important lessons;
- Innocent importers of fabrics and garments can get drawn into costly litigation even where they are an innocent party. This can be financially disastrous for an importer who has been dealing with a supplier against whom it will be difficult to trace or turns out to be a shell company. Always consider the risks of innocent infringement and consider insuring against such claims.
- Designers need to retain a full history of the development of their designs with relevant cross-references in case an allegation of copying is ever raised.
- Even reputable design houses sometimes stray over the line between taking inspiration and infringing an existing design. Where you suspect copying get hold of a sample for comparison.
In 1985 HS Tank and Sons ltd came up with the name OXFORD BLUE as clothing brand and registered OXFORD BLUE that same year as a trademark. The brand was reasonably successful in its chosen markets and between 1992 and 2002 approximately 2.5 million garments branded as Oxford Blue were sold.
In September 2002
The clothing brand was delighted when the trade mark examiner hearing the case threw our
Comment:
By registering its brand at the outset OXFORD BLUE were in a much stronger position when it came to dealing with the challenge by
Oakley sues over it sunglasses and Animal fights back
Oakley has registered the distinctive design of its sporting sunglasses with the