Thermos Ltd v Aladdin Sales & Marketing Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 667 (10 May 2001)

Thermos Ltd v Aladdin Sales & Marketing Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 667 (10 May 2001)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge made no error of principle in finding that the Insulator flask was substantially different from the registered design. The differences in the handle, bands, top proportions, and overall impression were sufficient that the designs were not substantially the same, both on immediate and remembered comparison. Therefore, there was no infringement.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 667
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Thermos Limited; Defendant/respondent: Aladdin Sales and Marketing Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Chancery Division (registered Design Infringement) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Registered Designs, Design Infringement, Appeals Procedure
Intellectual Property Registered Designs Design Infringement Appeals Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thermos Limited

Claimant/appellant

Aladdin Sales and Marketing Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Chancery Division (registered Design Infringement) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the design of the Insulator flask is substantially different from the registered design owned by Thermos Limited, such that there is no infringement under the Registered Designs Act 1949

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge made no error of principle in finding that the Insulator flask was substantially different from the registered design. The differences in the handle, bands, top proportions, and overall impression were sufficient that the designs were not substantially the same, both on immediate and remembered comparison. Therefore, there was no infringement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs summarily assessed at £20,000
  • Permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused