Comshare Incorporated

In the case of Comshare Incorporated, the dispute revolved around three design applications lodged by Comshare Incorporated, specifically applications 243/90, 515/90, and 1139/90. These applications pertained to designs applicable to a computer screen. The Registrar of Designs, through a delegate, examined the applications and raised objections regarding the registrability of the designs. Comshare Incorporated sought to exercise the Registrar's discretionary powers to overrule the examiner's objections, but ultimately, the applications were refused registration. The central legal issues that the court needed to decide were whether the designs were "applicable" to a computer screen within the meaning of the Designs Act and whether the designs qualified as "pattern or ornamentation" as defined by the Act.

The court addressed the first issue by examining the definition of "design" under the Act, which specifies that it includes features of shape, configuration, pattern, or ornamentation applicable to an article. The court considered whether the designs in question were durable or permanent features of the computer screen, as registrable designs should be capable of distinguishing an article from its fundamental form. The court concluded that the designs were transitory and not inherent to the computer screen, and therefore did not give the screen a particular individual and specific appearance. The second issue involved determining whether the designs could be considered as a "pattern or ornamentation" and not primarily literary or artistic in character. The court found that the designs were not clear and succinct due to the amount of textual matter, and thus, did not qualify as a registrable design.

Based on these findings, the court refused to register the designs, concluding that they were not applicable to the computer screen within the meaning of the Designs Act and did not qualify as "pattern or ornamentation." The decision was made by J.I. Welsh, a delegate of the Registrar of Designs, on 1 July 1991. The applicant's attorneys were represented by Watermark in Melbourne.