Dyson Ltd v Vax Ltd [2010] EWHC 1923 (Pat) (29 July 2010)

Dyson Ltd v Vax Ltd [2010] EWHC 1923 (Pat) (29 July 2010)

The Mach Zen vacuum cleaner does not infringe Dyson's Registered Design because, despite some similarities, the overall impression produced on the informed user is different, taking into account the design corpus as at the date of registration, the degree of design freedom, and the technical and aesthetic considerations. The transparent bin is not excluded from protection as being solely dictated by technical function, but the differences in design are sufficient to avoid infringement.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1923 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Dyson Limited; Defendant: Vax Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Registered Design Infringement Claim / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Registered Designs, Design Infringement, Scope of Protection, Technical Function Exception
Intellectual Property Design Law Registered Designs Design Infringement Scope of Protection 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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dyson Limited

Claimant

Vax Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Registered Design Infringement Claim / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Vax's Mach Zen vacuum cleaner infringes Dyson's UK Registered Design No. 2,043,779
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'features dictated solely by technical function' under Article 7(1) of the Designs Directive
  3. 3 Effect of statement of novelty in pre-implementation Registered Designs Act 1949

Ratio Decidendi

The Mach Zen vacuum cleaner does not infringe Dyson's Registered Design because, despite some similarities, the overall impression produced on the informed user is different, taking into account the design corpus as at the date of registration, the degree of design freedom, and the technical and aesthetic considerations. The transparent bin is not excluded from protection as being solely dictated by technical function, but the differences in design are sufficient to avoid infringement.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Dyson's claim for infringement of Registered Design No. 2,043,779 is dismissed.