Reckitt Benckiser Inc
Case
•
[2008] ADO 1
•2 January 2008
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Reckitt Benckiser Inc [2008] ADO 1
[2008] ADO 1
2 January 2008
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Reckitt Benckiser Inc, the Deputy Registrar of Designs, D Herald, examined several design applications and made decisions regarding their distinctiveness and potential revocation. The primary issue was whether the designs were distinctive enough over the prior art, specifically a publication in the owner's 2004 Annual Report. The court was required to interpret ambiguous statements of newness and distinctiveness, assess the distinctiveness of various designs, and determine the appropriate course of action, including whether to allow amendments or revoke the designs.
The court concluded that a request to amend an application under section 28 can be given effect even after a design has been registered, but the statement of newness and distinctiveness is defined by section 19(2) to be that statement as it existed at registration, not as subsequently amended. The court found that an 'ambit' statement of newness and distinctiveness that fails to identify specific visual features should be interpreted as referring to all the visual features in combination as shown in the representations. The court also determined that design 304541 is distinctive over the prior art, assuming it is limited to the specific colors shown in the representations. The court allowed the owner two months to seek amendment of this design under section 66.
The court revoked designs 303976, 303977, 303979, and 304539, as they lacked distinctiveness over the prior art. Design 303976 was found to be similar to the bottle shown in the Annual Report, with minor differences that did not affect the overall impression. Designs 303977 and 303979 were represented in grey scale, and the court determined that limiting them to specific greys as shown in the representations would not be allowable. Design 304539 also lacked distinctiveness over the prior art. The court found that designs 303978 and 304540 were distinctive over the prior art but allowed the owner two months to seek amendment of these designs under section 66.
The court concluded that a request to amend an application under section 28 can be given effect even after a design has been registered, but the statement of newness and distinctiveness is defined by section 19(2) to be that statement as it existed at registration, not as subsequently amended. The court found that an 'ambit' statement of newness and distinctiveness that fails to identify specific visual features should be interpreted as referring to all the visual features in combination as shown in the representations. The court also determined that design 304541 is distinctive over the prior art, assuming it is limited to the specific colors shown in the representations. The court allowed the owner two months to seek amendment of this design under section 66.
The court revoked designs 303976, 303977, 303979, and 304539, as they lacked distinctiveness over the prior art. Design 303976 was found to be similar to the bottle shown in the Annual Report, with minor differences that did not affect the overall impression. Designs 303977 and 303979 were represented in grey scale, and the court determined that limiting them to specific greys as shown in the representations would not be allowable. Design 304539 also lacked distinctiveness over the prior art. The court found that designs 303978 and 304540 were distinctive over the prior art but allowed the owner two months to seek amendment of these designs under section 66.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Design Law
-
Distinctiveness
-
Amendment of Design Applications
-
Interpretation of Design Representations
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Reckitt Benckiser Inc [2008] ADO 1
Most Recent Citation
Colgate-Palmolive Company Inc. [2010] ADO 2
Cases Citing This Decision
12
Colgate-Palmolive Company Inc.
[2010] ADO 2
Metroll Queensland Pty Ltd v Mark Nicholas Collymore, Courier Pete Pty Ltd [Sec=Unclassified]
[2008] ADO 9
Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd
[2008] ADO 6
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0
Pfizer Inc v Commissioner of Patents
[2005] FCA 137
Pfizer Inc v Commissioner of Patents
[2005] FCA 137