Gramophone Co. Ltd v. Magazine Holder Co.

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

Page: 1081↓

House of Lords.

(On Appeal From the Court of Appeal in England.)

Monday, February 13, 1911.

(Before the Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl Of Halsbury, Lords Atkinson and Shaw.)

48 SLR 1081

Gramophone Company Limited

v.

Magazine Holder Company.

Subject_Registered Design — New or Original — Infringement — Patents and Designs Act 1907 (7 Edw. VII, c. 29), sec. 49 (1) — Admission of Novelty and Originality — Effect of Admission.
Facts:

In an action for infringement of a registered design the defendants admitted the originality and novelty of the plaintiffs' design, but denied infringement.

Held that the Court was not bound by the admission, and that the design founded on had not the novelty or originality required to bring it within the statutory protection.

Opinion, on the question of infringement, per Earl of Halsbury, that the principles of patent law were inapplicable to designs, and that only exact reproduction of a design would amount to infringement.

Headnote:

The appellants were proprietors of a registered design and raised an action against the respondents to obtain injunction against an alleged infringement of the design. The respondents admitted the design to be new and original, but denied infringement, and judgment pronounced in the respondents' favour was affirmed by the Court of Appeal (Cozens-Hardy, M.R., and Buckley, L. J., diss. Fletcher Moulton, L.J.), on the ground that there was no infringement. Without calling on counsel for the respondents their Lordships gave considered judgment as follows:—

Judgment:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn) — The question in this case is whether the defendants have infringed a registered design of the plaintiffs. There is a “cabinet,” as it is called. It is in fact an oblong box, a little higher than square, standing upon four short legs. A few inches from the top the outline departs from the rectangular and curves a little inward, for ornamentation, I suppose. The top opens like a lid. The front opens by two sets of folding doors. Inside the space is divided by a horizontal shelf into two compartments, and in each of these compartments there are upright pieces dividing the compartments into three parts, just like pigeonholes in a desk. The plaintiffs have registered this box or cabinet for its shape and configuration, and bring this action because the defendants have made another cabinet, also oblong, also on wooden legs, also with the top opening like a lid, and with the front opening by doors, and disclosing inside a shelf and pigeon-hole arrangement somewhat similar. Now if a Court is not precluded from applying a little common sense, the first question which occurs to me is this—How can it be said that the shape or configuration of this cabinet is new and original so as to come within the Act? To this the plaintiffs' counsel answers, firmly but politely, that it is really no concern of ours, because the defendants (who, by the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gramophone Co. Ltd v. Magazine Holder Co. 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
[1911] UKHL 1081
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.