Pro-Tec Covers Ltd v Specialised Covers Ltd & Ors [2011] EWPCC 23 (18 October 2011)

Pro-Tec Covers Ltd v Specialised Covers Ltd & Ors [2011] EWPCC 23 (18 October 2011)

The court found no compelling evidence of copying or concerted dishonesty by the Defendants. The Defendants' witnesses were generally credible, and the Defendants had the skill and opportunity to design the products independently. The similarities were attributable to functional requirements and independent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWPCC 23
Parties
Claimant: Pro-Tec Covers Limited; Defendant: Specialised Covers Limited; Defendant: Specialised Car Covers Limited; Defendant: Omegacars Limited; Defendant: Mr Douglas Long; Defendant: Mr Elliot Long
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Unregistered Design Right Infringement / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Unregistered Design Right, Infringement, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Design Copying, Statutory Exclusions
Intellectual Property Unregistered Design Right Infringement Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Design Copying Statutory Exclusions

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Pro-Tec Covers Limited

Claimant

Specialised Covers Limited

Defendant

Specialised Car Covers Limited

Defendant

Omegacars Limited

Defendant

Mr Douglas Long

Defendant

Mr Elliot Long

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Unregistered Design Right Infringement / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants infringed the Claimant's unregistered design rights in caravan towing covers
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants copied the Claimant's designs
  3. 3 Whether the designs are excluded from protection under the 'method or principle of construction' or 'must fit' provisions of the CDPA

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no compelling evidence of copying or concerted dishonesty by the Defendants. The Defendants' witnesses were generally credible, and the Defendants had the skill and opportunity to design the products independently. The similarities were attributable to functional requirements and independent development. The Claimant's case was rejected on the facts.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed