This case illustrate that the Court applied the visual test to determine whether there is an infringement of a registered design.
Facts of the Case
The first plaintiff, Redland Tiles Ltd are the proprietors of a registered design in UK for roofing tiles. By virtue of section 2 of the United Kingdom Designs (Protection) Ordinance 1949, the registered proprietors enjoy, in the Federation, the like rights and privileges as though the certificate has been issued in the United Kingdom with an extension to the Federation. The second plaintiff, Concrete Industries (North Malaya) Ltd held license from the first plaintiff to manufacture tiles for sale in Malaya. It was alleged that the defendants manufactured cement tiles of similar shape and configuration as the design registered in UK by the first plaintiff. Defendant argued that their titles were of different designs and appearance. They contend that there were distinct differences between their tiles and the plaintiff’s tiles in the markings and configuration.
Issue of the Case
Whether there is an infringement of a registered design?
Judgment of the Court
The Court held that the eye is the sole test to determine whether there is an infringement. Generally, if under normal conditions, a person’s eye would not confuse the two designs, there is no infringement. If there are some outstanding features of the registered design which is not reproduced, it would generally be no infringement.
Applying this visual test on the two sets of tiles, the Court was of the opinion that the size, profiles and configuration of these tiles are very similar and both tiles do not appear to have any outstanding features to set them apart. Thus, the defendant’s tiles are likely to confuse.
The granted the order for injunction sought by the plaintiffs and order that the stock of titles currently held by the defendants to be delivered to the bailiff for distribution to religious and charitable institutions at the discretion of the assistant registrar.
コメント