OMNIBUS-TYPE CLAIMS IN DESIGN RIGHTS JURISDICTION REPORT: SOUTH AFRICA
Muhammed Vally DM Kisch
In an earlier report, I adopted a cautious view of
the effect of
the
Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision in BMW v Grandmark International on original equipment manufacturers (OEM) seeking to compete in the South African market. Happily, another decision (Chespak v MCG Industries) on similar subject matter was made, in August 2014, bringing much-needed certainty to the issue of functionality of registered South African designs. Te case concerned an appeal from a decision that granted an interdict
against infringement of a local manufacturer’s registered aesthetic design. Two main issues drove the appeal, namely that if any feature of the aesthetic design registration performs any function, that feature is functional in nature and has to be excluded in determining aesthetic design right merit. Tis applies to a greater degree, the argument went, if the design right owner opted to use a so-called omnibus-type definitive statement in defining its monopoly. Tis type of claim typically reads: “Te features of the design for which
protection is claimed reside in the shape and/or configuration and/or ornamentation and/or pattern as applied to article X, substantially as shown in the accompanying illustrations.” Te appellant’s contention was that
the use of an omnibus-type
definitive statement identified no specific feature to enable the general public to identify what the scope of protection is, thereby making the right itself a nullity. Further, the appellant contended that the absence of certainty in relation to the claimed monopoly meant that it had to consider every feature of the design, which in its view afforded it a basis on which to pry open its argument on functionality of each individual feature. A bench of three judges disagreed on appeal. In disposing of the
appellant’s criticism of the use of omnibus-type definitive statements, the judges referred to the ruling of former Judge Hugh Laddie in Ocular Sciences v Aspect Vision Care (1997), which was later applied by the Full Bench in the Supreme Court of Appeal in Clipsal and Another v Trust Electrical (2009), which accepted the omnibus-type statement in local practice. Laddie’s reasoning included that the omnibus-type statement does not
isolate any aspect of the design by claiming novelty or originality in any particular feature and that the proprietor can choose to assert the design right for the whole of the design or part of it. Tis is as broad as one can permissibly construct the monopoly under the South African Designs Act 193 of 1995. Te court then turned to deal with the functionality argument,
reasoning that the scope of functionality exclusion within the aesthetic context does not extend to features serving a functional purpose and also having aesthetic appeal. Te mere fact that a feature of a design or the design itself performs some function is not decisive.
www.worldipreview.com
“ONE WOULD INDEED BE HARD-PRESSED TO FIND AN AESTHETIC DESIGN THAT IS COMPLETELY FREE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY FUNCTION.”
According to the court, the real test is whether the design’s function, or
the article to which the design is applied performs, dictates or necessitates its shape or configuration. In other words, the court, in deciding the question, must consider whether the feature is included as part of the article (or the design) solely or purely for the reason that it performs a function, or if that article or feature has added aesthetic appeal. Te fact that the mentioned feature could have been manufactured to look different added to the court’s finding against the functionality argument. On the question of infringement, the court re-stated earlier authority
(Brudd Lines v Badsey 1973) that the criterion should be the impact of the whole of the design on the eye. A minute analysis for possible differences between the design and the infringing product (in the context of omnibus statements) is inappropriate. No doubt there would be differences in the infringing product as any infringer would attempt to camouflage plagiarism by introducing differences. If the design when viewed as whole shows unmistakeable similarity beyond argument, infringement would be established. Te recent decision should bring comfort to the workshops of OEM
designers as it has provided certainty in a manner that strings together relevant considerations of
the functionality versus aesthetic designs
argument in a single case. One would indeed be hard-pressed to find an aesthetic design that is completely free of the performance of any function, whether such function is to provide support, embellish or merely look pretty. It is a good decision and in line with my comments made in the BMW case.
Muhammed Vally is a patent director at DM Kisch. He can be contacted at:
muhammedv@dmkisch.com
85
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100