July 2010
In a judgement handed down on 29 July 2010, the UK High Court has decided that Vax’s dealings in their ‘Mach Zen’ vacuum cleaner have not infringed a UK registered design belonging to Dyson.
The court heard that Dyson are well known as the pioneers of dual cyclone dust separation technology in vacuum cleaners, as an alternative to the use of porous bags. Dyson’s first successful dual cyclone cleaner in the UK (an upright model) was launched in 1993, and a cylinder cleaner (called the DC02) was launched in 1995. This proved to be highly successful, receiving accolades for its design. Although the original versions were superseded by multi-cyclonic devices, a UK registered design for the DC02 cleaner remained in force.
Vax – a client of Forresters – launched their ‘Mach Zen’ multi-cyclonic cleaner in 2009. It had some features which were similar to Dyson’s registered design, including an inclined cyclonic separator with a transparent dust bin which enabled some of the cyclone components (and the separated dust) to be seen. It also had prominent rear wheels, but the general styling of the cleaner was very different from that of the DC02 – as the court put it, “rugged, angular and industrial” compared with the “smooth, curving and elegant” cleaner shown in the Dyson registration.
Infringement of a UK (or European Community) registered design is determined by whether or not the alleged infringement produces a ‘different overall impression’ from the registered design on the ‘informed user’. Protection does not extend to features of a product’s appearance which are dictated solely by their technical function, and a protectable design must be new and have individual character. As the design of the DC02 was very different from that of known cylinder vacuum cleaners at the time of registration, Dyson’s argument, in essence, was that the overall impression produced by their registration should be the same as that of the ‘Mach Zen’, despite the various differences.
At trial, Vax’s Counsel argued successfully that many of the design details in the ‘Mach Zen’ were in a category in which the freedom of the designer was constrained for technical reasons. These technical aspects, together with features such as a different hose connector position and a lack of any sweeping curved chassis in the ‘Mach Zen’, persuaded the Court that the overall impressions produced by the two designs were different.
Accordingly, Vax had not infringed the Dyson registered design.
This case is significant as it shows that more than some general similarity in design is necessary for a registration to be infringed, even if the registered design was markedly different from what had gone before. In short, the Court made it clear that the ‘informed user’ can be expected to look at features of a design with a relatively high degree of attention.
The case also illustrates that, if the factual issues in a dispute are clear and the parties are prepared to agree to deal rapidly with a limited amount of evidence, a judgement can be obtained quickly. In this case, Dyson’s action was launched in January 2010 and the judgement handed down on 29 July – some six months later.
If you would like further information, or have any general questions relating to registered design matters, please contact your usual Forresters attorney, or get in touch with Graham Dodd directly, who was part of the team successfully advising Vax.