UK: The importance of accuracy with RCDs
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

UK: The importance of accuracy with RCDs

A recent case Scomadi Ltd & Anr v RA Engineering Co at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) referencing two Registered Community Designs (RCD) showed the importance of accurate agreements between parties involved in manufacture and sales. The issues before the judge were breach of contract and infringement relating to three scooter models manufactured and sold by RA Engineering. The registered rights were two Registered Community Designs for motor scooters. The RCDs were owned by Scomadi who themselves sold a portfolio of retro-style vehicles with the look of the well-known 1960s Lambretta scooters.

Although the case was decided on the contractual issues, RA Engineering were, in the end, found to have the right to deal in the scooters and there were some useful comments on the issue of RCD validity and infringement. In particular, on the test of novel and individual character the informed user was considered to be a user of scooters and one that was familiar in the design field with both classic and modern scooter designs. The RCDs were found to be novel and have enough detailed differences over the prior published Lambretta scooters (prior art) to be valid, although the scope of the protection was narrow. Novelty was mainly due to a difference in the detail of the length:width ratio of certain side panels of the designs. The judge's findings were that out of three scooter models manufactured and sold by RA Engineering only one was found to infringe. The infringing model did not create on the user a different overall impression to one of the two RCDs.

The infringement verdict, however, was not part of the final outcome as on the true construction of an agreement between the parties the judge considered that RA Engineering were entitled to manufacture and sell the three models of motor scooters of the agreement. This is a stark reminder that there is value in getting agreements and contracts right at the start of a commercial relationship.

The IPEC was created as a specialist court within the High Court and has operated since October 2013. The court deals with smaller, simpler claims and so is intended to provide a venue where proceedings are quick, less complex and less expensive than those at the High Court.

bonner.jpg

Catherine Bonner


Chapman IPKings Park House22 Kings Park RoadSouthampton SO15 2ATUnited KingdomTel: +44 (0) 23 80000 2022 info@chapmanip.comwww.chapmanip.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article