Sebel Furniture Limited

[1987] ADO 1

In the Matter of the Designs Act 1906

‑ and ‑

In the Matter of Application No. 2629/85 by SEBEL FURNITURE LIMITED to Register a Design.

DECISION OF THE REGISTRAR OF DESIGNS:
         In this matter Sebel Furniture Limited, of Bankstown, New South Wales, applied for registration of a design applicable to a suite of furniture which was claimed to be a set of articles within the meaning of the Act.  The statement of monopoly included in the application reads:

Monopoly is claimed in respect of the shape and/or configuration of a suite of furniture comprising a ribbed side chair, a ribbed armchair, an upholstered side chair and an upholstered armchair as illustrated in the accompanying representations.

The representations disclose 4 chairs, as referred to in the statement of monopoly, for each of which 4 views are provided.  One of each perspective view is shown at Attachment A to this decision.
         The applicant was advised, following consideration of the application, that 4 different designs were disclosed, and that therefore 3 should be deleted, and the name of the article nominated and the statement of monopoly be amended in accordance with the single design selected.  It was argued that the "suite of furniture" did not constitute a set of articles.  In the face of this objection being maintained the applicant requested that the matter be heard.  At the hearing in Sydney on 6 August, 1987 the applicant was represented by Mr. Fraser Old of Spruson & Ferguson, Patent Attorneys of Sydney.

Mr. Old reiterated the applicant's claim that the application meets the definition of "a set of articles" set out at section 4(1) of the Act, namely:

"a number of articles that are of the same general character and ordinarily on sale, or intended to be used, together, being articles to each of which there is applied a design that is the same as, or that differs only in immaterial details or in features commonly used in the relevant trade from, the design applied to the other articles or to any of them."

He pointed to the fact that the articles illustrated are all chairs which are ordinarily sold together and may be used together, and stated that as they are all produced by means of the one mould, they must have the same features of shape or configuration applied to them.  He submitted that the variations in terms of whether or not the chairs have arms, or are upholstered, amount to no more than immaterial design details or design features commonly used in the furniture trade.  In support of these submissions Mr. Old referred to some of the applicant's trade brochures, which display the chairs in various combinations and groups.  He also referred to several prior registrations in respect of sets of chairs which, in his submission, demonstrated the Registrar's acceptance that the addition of upholstery or arms to this sort of article constitutes only immaterial differences in features commonly used in the relevant trade.
In a decision published at 7 IPR 367, Re APPLICATION BY PORCELAIN PRODUCTS PTY. LTD., the Senior Assistant Registrar sets out in some detail the Registrar's current interpretation and practice in respect of section 4 and sets of articles. In particular, I note the definition given for (1) "ordinarily on sale together" and (2) "intended to be used together":

(1)"the component articles of the set are normally displayed/offered for sale together as a group and are sought and purchased together as a group regardless of whether they bear a common design.  The fact that certain articles can be displayed/purchased together is not of itself sufficient to satisfy this criterion nor is the fact that certain articles may be displayed/

purchased together because they have a common design sufficient to satisfy this criterion."

(2)"the articles are intended to be used as or in a group or with each other.  The component articles of the set must to satisfy this criterion have some particular interaction, special relationship, complementary nature or necessary connection with each other."

Applying these and the other criteria set out in that decision, I am satisfied on the material before me that the 4 chairs illustrated in the representations lodged do constitute a set of articles, being of the same general character, namely, a chair; being likely to be on sale together for purchase as a group, as depicted in the applicant's sales brochures; and being of the same shape and configuration as regards their frame.  I agree that the variations between the members of the set involve no more than immaterial details or features common to the furniture trade.
         To ensure no ambiguity as to the features in respect of which the applicant is claiming a monopoly, I advised Mr. Old at the hearing that I required a re‑wording of the statement of monopoly.  It was agreed that the statement would be amended to read:

"Monopoly is claimed in respect of the shape and/or configuration of the chair frame of a suite of furniture comprising an unupholstered side chair, an unupholstered armchair, an upholstered side chair and an upholstered armchair as illustrated in the accompanying representations."

It was also agreed that the title of the set should be amended to "a set of 4 chairs constituting a suite of furniture" and a single illustration of the 4 chairs comprising the set would be provided.
         Accordingly, I direct that the application be amended to insert the proposed statement of monopoly and title, and the substitute representation of the 4 articles.  Once these amendments have been effected the application may be registered in accordance with section 23(1) of the Act.

(S. FARQUHAR)