Skip Navigation

Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases 2005 122(12-14):395-524; doi:10.1093/rpc/2005rpc19
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Crown Copyright

[2005] R.P.C. 19

DYSON LTD v QUALTEX (UK) LTD

High Court (Chancery Division)

(Mann J.) : June 23–25, 28–30, July 1, 2, 5–9 and 19 and December 21, 20041

[2004] EWHC 2981 (Ch); [2005] R.P.C. 19

Design right—Spare parts for vacuum cleaners—Originality—"Must fit" exclusion—"Must match" exclusion—Surface decoration—Method or principle of construction—Commonplace—Geographical extent of design field in question—Design right in part of an article—Infringement—Commencement of design right—Whether taking of orders after showing of prototype but ahead of production amounted to "making articles available for sale"—Acquiescence and estoppel—Additional statutory damages—Making findings of fact relevant to an inquiry as to damages.

Key Words: Acquiescence • Commonplace designs • Estoppel • Must fit exclusion • Must match exclusion • Spare parts • Unregistered design right

1 Paragraph numbers in this judgment are as assigned by the court.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.