Posts Tagged ‘Dyson Ltd’

Unprecedented IP envoy appointed to protect UK interests in China

Friday, December 9th, 2011

Following our recent blog on UK businesses’ anger at China’s apparent ‘flouting’ of Intellectual Property (IP) rights, the government’s appointment of the UK’s first ever IP Attaché has been announced.

Tom Duke will be based at the British Embassy in Beijing and will be responsible for providing UK companies trading in China with support and advice about the enforcement of IP rights.

In making the announcement, Baroness Wilcox (UK Minister for IP) commented on the opportunity that the Chinese market represents for UK businesses, stating that trade between the two nations was last year worth an estimated £42 million; she noted ‘we need an efficient global intellectual property system where businesses have the confidence to trade in growing markets’.

This appointment will be welcome news to UK companies such as Dyson who, we reported this week, are put off from dealing in China despite its rapid growth, due to the apparent lack of monitoring of domestic infringers of UK IP rights.

Laura Mackenzie

Laura Mackenzie
0121 237 3959
lmackenzie@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 9.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Dyson – China’s flouting of IP rights risks their expulsion from the WTO

Monday, December 5th, 2011

Sir James Dyson has warned that China’s reputation risks being tarnished in the eyes of foreign investors due to their approach to IP rights.

In advance of this week’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) symposium, which will be attended by trade representatives from China and the UK (including the UK Minister for IP- Baroness Wilcox), Dyson warned that China faces expulsion from the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the body that enforces global trade rules.

Dyson, a member of the prime minister’s business advisory group, suggests that China is creating an unlevel international playing field which prevents foreign companies enforcing their rights against Chinese infringers by maintaining a patent application process in which Chinese applications are passed in less than a year, compared to five years for foreign businesses.

China’s approach to IP right enforcement is likely to be of increasing interest to UK companies eager to protect their products, should the emerging market continue to pursue rapid economic growth without attempting to monitor domestic infringers.

Laura Mackenzie

Laura Mackenzie
0121 237 3959
lmackenzie@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 8.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Vax clean up

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

Dyson has lost its appeal against the High Court’s decision that Vax’s Mach Zen vacuum cleaner does not infringe Dyson’s registered design for its DC02 vacuum cleaner.

The High Court had dismissed Dyson’s infringement claim on the basis that the Mach Zen produced a different overall impression on the informed user. Dyson appealed the decision but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal emphasising that the key legal issues was whether the Mach Zen did or did not produce on the informed user a different overall impression and, in this case, the Mach Zen did indeed produce a different overall impression with the court noting that there were in fact ‘substantial differences’.

This case is a reminder that even if you have broad registered design protection, the use by a third party of a similar design will not amount to infringement if that design produces a different overall impression on the informed user (a knowledgeable user of the product).

Posted by Sara McNeill, who specialises in non-contentious intellectual property matters, including licensing, franchise, collaboration and development arrangements and IP audits and strategy; experienced in drafting and advising on commercial agreements.

Sara McNeill

Sara McNeill
0121 237 3930
smcneill@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Dyson fails to clean up

Thursday, September 9th, 2010

The High Court has dismissed a claim by Dyson Ltd against rival Vax Ltd for infringement of Dyson’s registered design for a cyclonic vacuum cleaner. The claim concerned Vax’s Mach Zen model which Dyson claimed infringed their registered design dating back to 1994.

Mr Justice Arnold dismissed the claim, deciding the two designs gave a different overall impression to the informed user of vacuum cleaners. He based this on the significant differences between the two machines; stating the Dyson machine gave a smooth, curving, elegant impression whereas Vax’s machine gave a rugged, angular, industrial and even rather brutal impression!

Despite the judge’s complementary take on its design Dyson are very unlikely to be satisfied with this decision. Dyson have historically gone to great lengths to protect their famous intellectual property. It therefore seems very likely that they will try to appeal it, in which case there is a likelihood of a referral to the ECJ.

Oliver Laing

Posted by Oliver Laing
0115 908 4806
olaing@brownejacobson.com.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)