DESIGN FOR LIVING


The IPKat has come across a rare phenomenon – a design decision from the UK Patent Office. In April 2003 Alexander John Garnett applied under the Registered Designs Act 1949 (as amended by the Registered Designs Regulations 2001) to register a design intended to be applied to a “stool”. The design consists of a stool which is shaped like a giant computer key and has a word on top. The design was registered but in September 2004 Ross Byers McBride applied to have the design registered for lack of novelty and individual character. He pointed to a stool of his own that he had displayed at UK and German design fairs.

The application for invalidity failed. An applicant for invalidity must provide evidence to prove his claim. Here the applicant for invalidity’s Statement of Case set out the grounds, but he had filed no evidence and the applicant’s claim to an earlier right have not been demonstrated. The photographs accompanying the Statement of Case did not confirm use of the illustrated design at any particular date or location.

The IPKat does his bit to test out design protection

The IPKat says that it’s unfortunate for Mr Byers McBride, but future applicants for invalidity have no excuse for not providing this basic evidence.

Some stools that aren’t eligible for design protection here, here and here
DESIGN FOR LIVING DESIGN FOR LIVING Reviewed by Anonymous on Sunday, May 29, 2005 Rating: 5

2 comments:

  1. Hi, I was searching blogs for ecommerce developer and came across yours. What a fantastic blog!

    I run a web site about website design bathurst if you get a change, drop by and check it out!

    ReplyDelete
  2. endless number of these wonderful finds, what with the Internet being a vast network of constantly evolving ideas and all!

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.