LLB Law
Intellectual Property Law
LAW09115
2020/2021
Essay Question
Critically analyse the current state of design law protections in the United Kingdom, in doing
so:
(1) show whether in your view the current law is "fit for purpose" in our digital age; and
(2) identify any weaknesses in the current design law protections and if so how you consider
the relevant protections may be strengthened.
Word Count: 2,199
1
, Table of Cases
Apple Computer Inc v Design Registry (2001) All E R (D) 336
British Leyland Motor Corp v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd [1986] RPC 279
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Green Cartridge Co (Hong Kong) Ltd [1997] FSR 817
Celanese International Corp v BP Chemicals Ltd [1999] RPC 203
Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 166; [2006] RPC 31
Dyson Ltd v Vax Ltd [2010] EWHC 1923
Farmers Build Ltd v Caner Bulk Materials Handling Ltd and Others [1999] RPC 461
Ford Motor Company and Iveco Fiat’s Design Application [1993] RPC 417
Gerber Garment Technology Inc v Lectra Systems Ltd [1997] RPC 443 CA
Green Lane Products Ltd v PMS International Group Ltd and Others [2008] FSR 28
J Choo (Jersey) Ltd v Towerstone Ltd [2008] FSR 19
Karen Millen v Dunnes Stores [2007] IEHC 449
Lambretta Clothing Co v Teddy Smith plc & Next Retail Ltd [2002] FSR 10
LB (Plastics) v Swish Products [1979] FSR 145
Ocular Sciences and Another v Aspect Vision Care Ltd [1997] RPC 289
PepsiCo Inc v Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic SA (C-281/10 P)
Procter & Gamble Co v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 936
Rolawn Ltd and Rolawn (Turf Growers) Ltd v Turfmech Ltd [2008] EWHC 989
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2013] ECDR 1; [2013] ECDR 2; [2013] FSR 10
Scholes Windows Ltd v Magnet Ltd [2002] FSR 10
Società Esplosivi Industriali SpA v Ordnance Technologies (UK) Ltd (formerly SEI (UK) Ltd and ors) [2004]
EWHC 48 (Ch); [2007] EWHC 2875 (Ch), [2008] RPC 12
Ultraframe v Fielding [2003] RPC 435
Woodhouse UK plc v Architectural Lighting Systems [2005] ECPCC (Designs) 25
2
Intellectual Property Law
LAW09115
2020/2021
Essay Question
Critically analyse the current state of design law protections in the United Kingdom, in doing
so:
(1) show whether in your view the current law is "fit for purpose" in our digital age; and
(2) identify any weaknesses in the current design law protections and if so how you consider
the relevant protections may be strengthened.
Word Count: 2,199
1
, Table of Cases
Apple Computer Inc v Design Registry (2001) All E R (D) 336
British Leyland Motor Corp v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd [1986] RPC 279
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Green Cartridge Co (Hong Kong) Ltd [1997] FSR 817
Celanese International Corp v BP Chemicals Ltd [1999] RPC 203
Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 166; [2006] RPC 31
Dyson Ltd v Vax Ltd [2010] EWHC 1923
Farmers Build Ltd v Caner Bulk Materials Handling Ltd and Others [1999] RPC 461
Ford Motor Company and Iveco Fiat’s Design Application [1993] RPC 417
Gerber Garment Technology Inc v Lectra Systems Ltd [1997] RPC 443 CA
Green Lane Products Ltd v PMS International Group Ltd and Others [2008] FSR 28
J Choo (Jersey) Ltd v Towerstone Ltd [2008] FSR 19
Karen Millen v Dunnes Stores [2007] IEHC 449
Lambretta Clothing Co v Teddy Smith plc & Next Retail Ltd [2002] FSR 10
LB (Plastics) v Swish Products [1979] FSR 145
Ocular Sciences and Another v Aspect Vision Care Ltd [1997] RPC 289
PepsiCo Inc v Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic SA (C-281/10 P)
Procter & Gamble Co v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 936
Rolawn Ltd and Rolawn (Turf Growers) Ltd v Turfmech Ltd [2008] EWHC 989
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2013] ECDR 1; [2013] ECDR 2; [2013] FSR 10
Scholes Windows Ltd v Magnet Ltd [2002] FSR 10
Società Esplosivi Industriali SpA v Ordnance Technologies (UK) Ltd (formerly SEI (UK) Ltd and ors) [2004]
EWHC 48 (Ch); [2007] EWHC 2875 (Ch), [2008] RPC 12
Ultraframe v Fielding [2003] RPC 435
Woodhouse UK plc v Architectural Lighting Systems [2005] ECPCC (Designs) 25
2
