NDLI: “Trunki” : Decision of the Supreme Court 9 March 2016

Please wait, while we are loading the content...

“Metalco” : Decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation, I Civil Division (Suprema Corte di Cassazione, Sezione I Civile) 13 November 2015 – Case No. 23292/2015

“Trunki” : Decision of the Supreme Court 9 March 2016 – Case No. [2016] UKSC 12

“Pechstein/International Skating Union” : Decision of the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) 7 June 2016 – Case No. KZR 6/15

Comment on “Metalco” – “Top-Tier Design”, Copyright Protection, and the Assessment of the “Artistic Value” Requirement Under Italian Law : Decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation, I Civil Division (Suprema Corte di Cassazione, Sezione I Civile) 13 November 2015 – Case No. 23292/2015

Pedro de Miguel Asensio: Derecho Privado de Internet

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law : Volume 47, Issue 6, September 2016

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law : Volume 47, Issue 5, August 2016

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law : Volume 47, Issue 4, June 2016

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law : Volume 47, Issue 3, May 2016

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law : Volume 47, Issue 2, March 2016

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law : Volume 47, Issue 1, February 2016

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law : Volume 46

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law : Volume 45

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law : Volume 44

“Trunki” : Decision of the Supreme Court 9 March 2016 – Case No. [2016] UKSC 12

Content Provider	Springer Nature Link
Copyright Year	2016
Abstract	1. Whether an item infringes a Community Registered Design, the decision to be made is whether the item produces on the informed user a different overall impression from the design. 2. Because such a decision involves the application of a not altogether precise legal standard to a combination of features of varying importance, an appellate court should not reverse a judge’s decision unless he has erred in principle. 3. When it comes to deciding the extent of protection afforded by a particular Community Registered Design, the question must ultimately depend on the proper interpretation of the registration in issue, and in particular of the images included in that registration. 4. If various representations in the Community Registered Design are shown in monochrome, it must be concluded that this design is not limited to particular colours, and therefore, colour cannot be pointed to as being a point of distinction. 5. Absence of decoration can, as a matter of principle, be a feature of a registered design. Simplicity or minimalism can notoriously be an aspect of a design, and it would be very curious if a design right registration system did not cater for it. 6. If absence of ornamentation is a feature of a registered design, that does not mean that because an item has ornamentation, it cannot, for that reason alone, infringe the registered design in question: it merely means that the fact that an allegedly infringing item has ornamentation is a factor which can be taken into account when deciding whether or not it does infringe that design. 7. Once one concludes that a registered design claims not just a three-dimensional shape, but a three-dimensional shape in two contrasting colours, one colour for the body and another colour (or possibly other colours) for specified components, then it must follow that, when one compares the allegedly infringing article with that design on a “like for like” basis, one must take into account the colouring on that article.
Starting Page	863
Ending Page	864
Page Count	2
File Format	PDF
ISSN	00189855
Journal	IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Volume Number	47
Issue Number	7
e-ISSN	21950237
Language	English
Publisher	Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Publisher Date	2016-10-24
Publisher Place	Berlin, Heidelberg
Access Restriction	One Nation One Subscription (ONOS)
Subject Keyword	Design Colour and shape International IT and Media Law, Intellectual Property Law Overall impression Absence of decoration Community Registered Design
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Case study
Subject	Political Science and International Relations Law

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Corrigendum to: “Trunki” : Decision of the Supreme Court 9 March 2016 – Case No. [2016] UKSC 12

“Actavis v. Lilly – Pemetrexed” : Decision of the Supreme Court 12 July 2017 – Case No. [2017] UKSC 48

“Impression Products v. Lexmark International” : Decision of the Supreme Court 30 May 2017 – Case No. 15–1189

“BMW-Emblem” : Decision of the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) 12 March 2015 – Case No. I ZR 153/14

“Samsung v. Apple” : Decision of the Supreme Court 6 December 2016 – Case No. 15-777

“Bud France” : Decision of the Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) 29 June 2016 – Case No. RG 2004/04558; P20130230

“Starbucks v. Sky” : Decision of the Supreme Court 13 May 2015 – Case No. [2015] UKSC 31

“Limelight v. Akamai” : Decision of the Supreme Court 2 June 2014 – Case No. 12-786

“Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands” : Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 22 March 2017 – Case No. 15-866

“Trunki” : Decision of the Supreme Court 9 March 2016 – Case No. [2016] UKSC 12

Similar Documents

Corrigendum to: “Trunki” : Decision of the Supreme Court 9 March 2016 – Case No. [2016] UKSC 12

“Actavis v. Lilly – Pemetrexed” : Decision of the Supreme Court 12 July 2017 – Case No. [2017] UKSC 48

“Impression Products v. Lexmark International” : Decision of the Supreme Court 30 May 2017 – Case No. 15–1189

“BMW-Emblem” : Decision of the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) 12 March 2015 – Case No. I ZR 153/14

“Samsung v. Apple” : Decision of the Supreme Court 6 December 2016 – Case No. 15-777

“Bud France” : Decision of the Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) 29 June 2016 – Case No. RG 2004/04558; P20130230

“Starbucks v. Sky” : Decision of the Supreme Court 13 May 2015 – Case No. [2015] UKSC 31

“Limelight v. Akamai” : Decision of the Supreme Court 2 June 2014 – Case No. 12-786

“Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands” : Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 22 March 2017 – Case No. 15-866

“Trunki” : Decision of the Supreme Court 9 March 2016 – Case No. [2016] UKSC 12