Chiaro Technology Limited v Mayborn (UK) Limited

Chiaro Technology Limited v Mayborn (UK) Limited

The court found that the key features of Chiaro's registered designs—such as the curved anterior face, breast shield shape, flat bottom of the milk collection vessel, and transparency—were dictated solely by technical function and thus excluded from protection under s1C(1) of the Registered Designs Act 1949. After excluding these features, the remaining aspects of the designs were sufficiently different from Mayborn's MFM product to produce a different overall impression in the eye of the informed user. Accordingly, there was no infringement.

Parties
Claimant: Chiaro Technology Limited; Defendant: Mayborn (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Registered Designs, Design Infringement, Technical Function Exclusion, Design Freedom
Intellectual Property Registered Designs Design Infringement Technical Function Exclusion Design Freedom

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chiaro Technology Limited

Claimant

Mayborn (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mayborn's MFM product infringes Chiaro's registered designs for breast pumps under the Registered Designs Act 1949
  2. 2 Whether features of the registered designs are excluded from protection due to being dictated solely by technical function

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the key features of Chiaro's registered designs—such as the curved anterior face, breast shield shape, flat bottom of the milk collection vessel, and transparency—were dictated solely by technical function and thus excluded from protection under s1C(1) of the Registered Designs Act 1949. After excluding these features, the remaining aspects of the designs were sufficiently different from Mayborn's MFM product to produce a different overall impression in the eye of the informed user. Accordingly, there was no infringement.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No infringement found of registered designs 90052927030010, 90052927030002, or 90052927030003 by Mayborn's MFM product
  • Claimant's claim dismissed