Ifejika v Ifejika & Anor [2011] EWPCC 31 (23 November 2011)

Ifejika v Ifejika & Anor [2011] EWPCC 31 (23 November 2011)

Victor Ifejika was the original proprietor of the registered design for the contact lens cleaning device, having commissioned and paid for the relevant design work. The registration is valid as he is now the registered proprietor. The Lenscare device infringes the registered design, but damages are limited by agreement. The AMO device does not infringe as it creates a different overall impression. The unregistered design right claim fails as the relevant features are not original or not substantially copied. The defendants' alternative defences (including lack of knowledge and estoppel) do not succeed. The registration is not cancelled or rectified.

Citation
[2011] EWPCC 31
Parties
Claimant: Victor Ifejika; First Defendant: Charles Ifejika; Second Defendant: Lens Care Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Infringement and Validity Dispute (registered and Unregistered Design Rights) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for infringement of registered design right succeeds in part; claim for unregistered design right fails; registration is not cancelled; damages for Lenscare device limited to agreed sum; no further inquiry as to damages for AMO device.
Legal Topics
Registered Design Right, Unregistered Design Right, Proprietorship of Designs, Infringement, Commissioned Works, Rectification and Cancellation of Register
Intellectual Property Law Design Rights Registered Design Right Unregistered Design Right Proprietorship of Designs Infringement Commissioned Works Rectification and Cancellation of Register

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Ifejika

Claimant

Charles Ifejika

First Defendant

Lens Care Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Infringement and Validity Dispute (registered and Unregistered Design Rights) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who was the original proprietor of the registered design for the contact lens cleaning device?
  2. 2 Is the registered design valid or should it be cancelled?
  3. 3 Did the defendants infringe the registered or unregistered design rights?

Ratio Decidendi

Victor Ifejika was the original proprietor of the registered design for the contact lens cleaning device, having commissioned and paid for the relevant design work. The registration is valid as he is now the registered proprietor. The Lenscare device infringes the registered design, but damages are limited by agreement. The AMO device does not infringe as it creates a different overall impression. The unregistered design right claim fails as the relevant features are not original or not substantially copied. The defendants' alternative defences (including lack of knowledge and estoppel) do not succeed. The registration is not cancelled or rectified.

Court Disposition

Claim for infringement of registered design right succeeds in part; claim for unregistered design right fails; registration is not cancelled; damages for Lenscare device limited to agreed sum; no further inquiry as to damages for AMO device.

Orders

  • Declaration that Victor Ifejika is the proprietor of the registered design and that the registration is valid.
  • Declaration that the Lenscare device infringes the registered design.