Procter & Gamble Company v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 936 (10 October 2007)

Procter & Gamble Company v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 936 (10 October 2007)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge at first instance erred in principle by failing to apply the correct overall impression of both the registered design and the accused product, by generalizing dominant features, and by implicitly requiring a 'clearly different' impression rather than a 'different' impression. Upon forming its own view, the Court found that the Air Wick product produced a different overall impression on the informed user compared to P&G's registered design, and therefore did not infringe. The registered design was held valid.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 936
Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Procter & Gamble Company; Defendant/appellant: Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) From High Court (chancery Division, Intellectual Property) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: infringement finding reversed, validity upheld.
Legal Topics
Registered Community Designs, Design Infringement, Design Validity, Scope of Protection, Informed User Test
Intellectual Property Law Registered Community Designs Design Infringement Design Validity Scope of Protection Informed User Test

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Procter & Gamble Company

Claimant/respondent

Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) From High Court (chancery Division, Intellectual Property) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Reckitt Benckiser's Air Wick spray canister infringes P&G's registered community design (RCD) No. 000097969-0001
  2. 2 Whether the registered design is valid

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge at first instance erred in principle by failing to apply the correct overall impression of both the registered design and the accused product, by generalizing dominant features, and by implicitly requiring a 'clearly different' impression rather than a 'different' impression. Upon forming its own view, the Court found that the Air Wick product produced a different overall impression on the informed user compared to P&G's registered design, and therefore did not infringe. The registered design was held valid.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: infringement finding reversed, validity upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal on infringement allowed: Reckitt Benckiser's Air Wick product does not infringe P&G's registered community design.
  • Appeal on validity dismissed: P&G's registered community design is valid.