Sales v Stromberg & Ors [2005] EWHC 1624 (Ch) (26 July 2005)

Sales v Stromberg & Ors [2005] EWHC 1624 (Ch) (26 July 2005)

Design right subsists in the Infinity design as it is original and not commonplace in the relevant design field; the Defendants infringed this design right and breached confidence by unauthorised use. The Trinity design was not infringed as the Defendants' product was not substantially the same. The Defendants' Part 20 claim and passing off claim failed as the Claimant only sold Defendants' goods and accurately represented them.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1624 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Alan Sales; First Defendant: Jonathan Stromberg; Second Defendant: Geraldine Knight; Third Defendant: CIRInternational Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Design Right Infringement and Breach of Confidence / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claimant's claim for design right infringement and breach of confidence succeeds in respect of the Infinity design; fails in respect of the Trinity design. Defendants' Part 20 claim fails.
Legal Topics
Design Right, Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, Breach of Confidence, Passing Off
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Design Right Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 Breach of Confidence Passing Off

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Sales

Claimant

Jonathan Stromberg

First Defendant

Geraldine Knight

Second Defendant

CIRInternational Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Design Right Infringement and Breach of Confidence / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether design right subsists in the Infinity and Trinity designs
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants infringed the Claimant's design rights
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants breached confidence

Ratio Decidendi

Design right subsists in the Infinity design as it is original and not commonplace in the relevant design field; the Defendants infringed this design right and breached confidence by unauthorised use. The Trinity design was not infringed as the Defendants' product was not substantially the same. The Defendants' Part 20 claim and passing off claim failed as the Claimant only sold Defendants' goods and accurately represented them.

Court Disposition

Claimant's claim for design right infringement and breach of confidence succeeds in respect of the Infinity design; fails in respect of the Trinity design. Defendants' Part 20 claim fails.