Design litigation reaches the Supreme Court

Infringement of adesign registration for chimney cap

Our client, the Swedish metalsmith Bengt Wulf, designed a chimney cap and upon application he was granted a design registration in 2005. A few years later he used the design registration as basis for a cease and desist letter directed at a competitor (JLM) for infringement. As a counteraction the competitor sued trying to invalidate the design registration. We represented Wulf in the case regarding the validity of the design registration.

Did the design met the requirement of distinctiveness?

The core issue of the case was whether Wulf’s design met the requirement of distinctiveness and novelty. That is, if the knowledgeable user’s overall impression of the product differs from prior art.

The case was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court but was settled out of court

The first instance, The District Court, said no, Wulf’s chimney cap didn’t differ enough from prior art and the registration should be invalidated based on lack of novelty. We appealed to the Court of appeal but they did not grant Wulf leave to appeal. So we appealed that decision to The Supreme Court and they agreed with us – the Court of appeal was forced to try the case.

Once the Court of Appeal did try the case on the merits they changed the district court´s outcome, and we were successful. The court stated that our client’s design registration was valid, and that the invalidation case was dismissed. The court stated that the functionality of the chimney cap was possible to achieve with alternative designs, and that the design therefore was not solely based on a technical solution of the product. The court also stated that the design does not lack novelty and distinctiveness.

That decision was appealed by our counterpart and, after more than a year of contemplating, the Supreme Court actually granted a leave to appeal. This was the first time in eleven years that the Supreme Court would handle a design case, and we started to prepare the procedure in the Supreme Court.

However, during the preparations of the procedure, the parties reached an extrajudicial settlement and the appeal was withdrawn.

"This was the first time in eleven years that the Supreme Court granted a leave to appeal for a design case"

Date

Dec 2014

Client

Bengt Wulf

Branch

Engineering industry

Workflow
Contact(s)

Magnus Henning

Partner

Attorney at Law

Authorised Patent Attorney (SE)

+46 8 729 91 56

magnus.henning@groth.eu

Artur Emtedal

Partner

Authorised Patent Attorney (SE)

European Design Attorney

+46 8 729 91 10

artur.emtedal@groth.eu

Top

Contact us

Countries & Contacts.

  • Jordglob

    Stockholm

    Headquarter

    Groth & Co KB
    Box 6107
    SE-102 32 STOCKHOLM

    Visiting address:
    Birger Jarlsgatan 57 B
    SWEDEN
    Telephone: +46 8 729 91 00
    Email: info@groth.eu
    Fax: +46 8 31 67 67

    Show on map

  • Jordglob

    Malmö

    Groth & Co i Malmö HB
    Box 6107
    SE-102 32 STOCKHOLM
    SVERIGE
    Telephone: +46 40 701 55
    Email: oresund@groth.eu
    Fax: +46 40 12 26 11

    Show on map

  • Jordglob

    Alicante

    Groth & Co KB
    Avda. De Aguilera 19-1 B
    E-03007 ALICANTE
    SPAIN
    Telephone: +34 96 592 04 55
    Email: info@groth.eu
    Fax: +34 96 592 05 03

    Show on map

  • Jordglob

    Munich

    Groth GmbH
    Rosenkavalierplatz 4
    D-81925 MUNICH
    GERMANY
    Telephone: +49 89 982 952 63
    Email: info@groth.eu
    Fax: +49 89 982 952 65

    Show on map

  • Jordglob

    Shanghai

    Groth & Co KB
    378 WuKang Road, Office 303
    200031 SHANGHAI
    CHINA
    Telephone: +86 1361 180 4064
    Email: info@groth.eu

    Show on map

  • Jordglob

    Beijing

    Groth & Co
    Telephone: +86 1 355 271 60 92
    Email: hao.li@groth.eu

    Show on map