GEA Westfalia Separator Group GmbH - [2025] ADO 1

DESIGNS ACT 2003

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE REGISTRAR OF DESIGNS WITH REASONS

Re:Registered design number 202215837 (class 14-02) – a display screen with graphical user interface – in the name of GEA Westfalia Separator Group GmbH

Delegate:

Benjamin Goldsworthy

Representation:

Lester Miller of Foundry Intellectual Property Pty Ltd

Decision:

2025 ADO 1

Designs Act 2003 (Cth) – examination of design under section 63 – practice of viewing a product ‘at rest’ – interpretation of the meaning of ‘visual features of a product’ and ‘product’ – design not distinctive over the prior art base – registered design to be revoked

Background

This matter concerns a design (‘Design’) which has been registered under the Designs Act 2003 (Cth) (‘Act’).[1] The Design was entered on the Register of Designs with the following particulars:
Design number:        202215837
Owner:  GEA Westfalia Separator Group GmbH (‘Owner’)
Product:  A display screen with graphical user interface
Filed:  3 October 2022
Priority date:            7 April 2022 (‘Relevant Date’)
Convention details:   Number: 008929814-0004; Country: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); Date: 7 April 2022
Representations:see Schedule 1 (‘Representation’).
[1] Unless I have otherwise specified, throughout these written reasons a reference to a section of an enactment is a reference to a section in the Designs Act 2003 (Cth).
The application for the Design contained the following statement of newness and distinctiveness:
The new and distinctive features are the data layout pattern and ornamentation of the display screen shown in the representations, including the colouring, but wherein the proportions of colours on the ring charts and bar chart may vary, as may the numbers on the readouts, the location shown on the map, the machine serial numbers and the company name in the top left corner (‘SoND’).

Examination background

On 3 August 2023, the Owner sought examination of the Design under s 63(1). During the examination, the Examiner raised citations against the Design in a written report (‘Citations’) which I extract at Schedule 2. Upon examination of the Design the Examiner considered the product pictured in the Representation to be ‘at rest’, an example depiction of which I set out at Schedule 3 (‘Blank Representation’).
After considering submissions from the Owner’s Attorney, the Examiner maintained that the Citations meant the Design is not new and distinctive. On 19 April 2024, the Owner requested to be heard.
A hearing was scheduled and I invited the Owner to file any written submissions or evidence by 17 March 2025. On 17 March 2025, the Owner filed written submissions prepared by Lester Miller of Foundry Intellectual Property Pty Ltd.
On 18 March 2025, I heard the matter by teleconference. Mr Miller appeared on behalf of the Owner. I am to decide this matter as a delegate of the Registrar of Designs (‘Registrar’) and do so with reference to the examination reports, written responses and all of the Owner’s submissions. This process is not a review of the examination, though I do refer to the examination history…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read GEA Westfalia Separator Group GmbH and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] ADO 1
Decision Date: 17 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of a registered design application, the applicant GEA Westfalia Separator Group GmbH sought an examination of their design under the Designs Act 2003 (Cth). The design in question was a display screen with a graphical user interface, registered under the Act with design number 202215837. The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Act, specifically the meaning of 'visual features of a product' and 'product', and whether the practice of viewing a product 'at rest' for examination purposes was appropriate. The Owner argued that the design should not be examined 'at rest', claiming that a GUI as depicted in the representations constituted a product and thus should be considered when assessing distinctiveness.

The court found that the practice of examining designs 'at rest', where the product is in an off state, was consistent with the statutory language and legislative history of the Act. The term 'product' was interpreted to mean a physical thing, as evidenced by the definitional sections of the Act, the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Australian Law Reform Commission Report. The Owner's arguments that a GUI could be considered a product were rejected, as the court found no basis in the Act's language or legislative intent to support such an interpretation. The design, when examined 'at rest', was found to be substantially similar to prior art, leading to the conclusion that the design was not distinctive and must be revoked.

Consequently, the court decided that the registered design should be revoked. The decision was based on the interpretation of the Act and the established practice of examining designs 'at rest'. The Owner's submissions regarding the meaning of 'product' and the practice of examination were not persuasive, and the court upheld the decision to revoke the design. The decision will take effect unless an appeal is filed, in which case the revocation will be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Orders