Astra/Zeneca AB

The matter before the court involved a dispute concerning the distinctiveness of a design, specifically Design 303092, which was in the name of AstraZeneca AB. The issue at hand was whether the design was distinctive given the existence of prior art, specifically Swedish Design 77534. The Deputy Registrar of Designs, D Herald, was tasked with determining the distinctiveness of the design and addressing any legal issues arising from the application of relevant statutes and regulations.

The primary legal issue was whether the distinctiveness of the design was to be determined based on the visual features alone or whether it could be influenced by the potential functionality of certain elements of the design. The Deputy Registrar considered whether the standard of the informed user, who would likely be aware of the functionality of such devices, should impact the assessment of distinctiveness. Furthermore, the court had to address whether the user's attention being drawn to a particular feature due to its expected functionality could make that feature distinctive, even if the functionality did not actually exist.

In reaching the decision, the Deputy Registrar assessed the distinctiveness of the design based on the standard of the informed user, which took into account the user's expectation of functionality. The court held that if the informed user's attention was drawn to a feature due to its potential functionality, that feature could be considered distinctive. The Deputy Registrar noted that the user's attention to the indicator, due to its expected functionality, was sufficient to establish its distinctiveness. The declarations from relevant users and the Deputy Registrar's own assessment supported the conclusion that the design was indeed distinctive compared to the prior art.

Following the decision, the Deputy Registrar directed that the examination of the design be considered completed, provided the owner filed a formal withdrawal of the proposed amendments. This decision concluded that the design in question was new and distinctive in comparison to the prior art, thereby allowing the design to proceed under the Designs Act 2003.