Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd

Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd

Qualtex infringed Dyson’s unregistered design rights by copying the relevant spare parts. The copied features were original and not excluded by the 'must fit', 'must match', 'surface decoration', or 'commonplace' exceptions. Dyson’s claims were not barred by estoppel or acquiescence, as there was no sufficient knowledge or encouragement by Dyson. Relief is to be determined according to the expiry of the design right and the statutory licensing regime.

Parties
Claimant: Dyson Limited; Defendant: Qualtex (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil (intellectual Property Design Right Infringement) / First Instance Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed. Qualtex found to have infringed Dyson’s unregistered design rights. Estoppel/acquiescence defence rejected.
Legal Topics
Unregistered Design Right, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Must Fit Exception, Must Match Exception, Surface Decoration, Commonplace Exception, Estoppel and Acquiescence, Remedies for Infringement
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Unregistered Design Right Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Must Fit Exception Must Match Exception Surface Decoration Commonplace Exception +2 more

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 8 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dyson Limited

Claimant

Qualtex (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (intellectual Property Design Right Infringement) / First Instance Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Qualtex infringed Dyson's unregistered design rights in various vacuum cleaner spare parts under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the 'must fit', 'must match', 'surface decoration', or 'commonplace' exceptions apply to the disputed parts
  3. 3 Whether Dyson's claims are barred by estoppel or acquiescence due to alleged inaction

Ratio Decidendi

Qualtex infringed Dyson’s unregistered design rights by copying the relevant spare parts. The copied features were original and not excluded by the 'must fit', 'must match', 'surface decoration', or 'commonplace' exceptions. Dyson’s claims were not barred by estoppel or acquiescence, as there was no sufficient knowledge or encouragement by Dyson. Relief is to be determined according to the expiry of the design right and the statutory licensing regime.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Qualtex found to have infringed Dyson’s unregistered design rights. Estoppel/acquiescence defence rejected.

Orders

  • Declaration of infringement of unregistered design right in the relevant parts, except for features excluded by statutory exceptions
  • Injunctive relief in respect of parts still within the first five years of design right