Rolawn Ltd & Anor v Turfmech Machinery Ltd

Rolawn Ltd & Anor v Turfmech Machinery Ltd

There was no infringement of Rolawn's unregistered or registered design rights because the only elements copied by Turfmech were general ideas or methods of construction, not the protected physical design. The Turfmech machines did not produce an article exactly or substantially to the Rolawn design, nor did they produce the same overall impression as the registered design. The registered design was valid, possessing individual character, and was not dictated solely by technical function.

Parties
Claimant: Rolawn Limited; Claimant: Rolawn (Turf Growers) Limited; Defendant: Turfmech Machinery Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (intellectual Property) / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim and counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Unregistered Design Right, Registered Design Right, Design Infringement, Validity of Registered Design, Commonplace Defence, Technical Function Exception
Intellectual Property Unregistered Design Right Registered Design Right Design Infringement Validity of Registered Design Commonplace Defence Technical Function Exception

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rolawn Limited

Claimant

Rolawn (Turf Growers) Limited

Claimant

Turfmech Machinery Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (intellectual Property) / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Turfmech infringed Rolawn's unregistered design right in its wide area mower
  2. 2 Whether Turfmech infringed Rolawn's registered design right
  3. 3 Whether Rolawn's registered design is invalid for lack of individual character or because features are dictated solely by technical function

Ratio Decidendi

There was no infringement of Rolawn's unregistered or registered design rights because the only elements copied by Turfmech were general ideas or methods of construction, not the protected physical design. The Turfmech machines did not produce an article exactly or substantially to the Rolawn design, nor did they produce the same overall impression as the registered design. The registered design was valid, possessing individual character, and was not dictated solely by technical function.

Court Disposition

Claim and counterclaim dismissed